Conquer Club

TheProwler wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:1. you completely misunderstand evolution. The idea that the strongest always survive is just not true, for all sorts of reasons. I already said that increased body mass also tends to mean more food needed, which is a direct negative in many situations.

You keep saying body mass. I am talking about equivalent body mass. Really, at least I come out and say it when I don't read your post. If you read mine, at least try to understand it. I speak with very simple words for a reason.

The answer was in MY Post which you decided to ignore.

There is a reason why ignorance and ignore have the same basic roots.

TheProwler wrote:

TheProwler wrote:Take a few minutes and check this stuff out: http://www.crystalinks.com/ufohistory.html

Does this give us some indications of generic engineers from a far away place? Let's not discount the scientific finding of archaeologists.

PLAYER, don't try to bury the facts.

How, exactly, was saying that this is a possibility, but the proof that exists is not CONCLUSIVE and is too shakey.. that is, has too many other explanations, "burying the facts"?

At least I read through your post, AND follow your links before responding. You make it clear you just want to attack and troll. You did bring up some legitimate points, but you ignore 90% of the answers.

TheProwler wrote:But it is all silly - average gorillas can run 25 miles per hour. They didn't line up all the gorillas in the world and have a race. Average men run much slower than average gorillas. So your point is invalid.

Yeah but we also can't run faster than loads of other species, we don't need to.

TheProwler wrote:Humans haven't been able to travel past their moon, yet they think they have the universe figured out. So smug. So overconfident.

The religious have only faith, ritual and primitive superstition, yet they think they have the universe figured out. So smug. So overconfident.

(Miss me? )

Backglass wrote:

TheProwler wrote:Humans haven't been able to travel past their moon, yet they think they have the universe figured out. So smug. So overconfident.

The religious have only faith, ritual and primitive superstition, yet they think they have the universe figured out. So smug. So overconfident.

(Miss me? )

Hello Backglass, yes you were missed.

That said, I believe you know I am both of religious faith AND of reason. I exclude neither and would never say I "have the universe figured out". (and Prowler wasrespondind to my statement)

I'm going to evolve this July. Same as the last few summers.

TheProwler wrote:

owheelj wrote:

TheProwler wrote:2. A gorilla can outrun a human.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_fast_can_a_gorilla_run

That's faster than our top sprinters.

Plus they can climb trees and throw bananas at you.

False.

http://www.forbes.com/2004/05/14/cx_mh_ ... print.html

Human sprinters can outrun gorillas, and what about over a long distance? Who can ran a marathon faster?

Gorillas can run at speed in excess of 20 mph and can reach a top speed of 25 mph when needed.

Current runners already are touching the limits of what can be accomplished with the bodies nature gave them. "We're very close to the edge," says Peter Weyand, an assistant professor at Rice University. He says record-setting sprinters such as Michael Johnson and Donovan Bailey hit top speeds of as much as 27 miles per hour

Haha! You pick, like, 2 dudes throughout history that can run greater than 25 miles per hour. By the way, if they actually hit 27 miles per hour for more than one step, it was for less than 3 steps. Other experts have said they haven't hit 25 miles per hour.

But it is all silly - average gorillas can run 25 miles per hour. They didn't line up all the gorillas in the world and have a race. Average men run much slower than average gorillas. So your point is invalid.

I feel tunnel vision creeping in....

BTW, most humans couldn't run a marathon if their life depended on it. This really is going off on a meaningless tangent just because you didn't get the answer you wanted...

Let me repeat your quote;

Prowler wrote:A gorilla can outrun a human...

That's faster than our top sprinters.

But as I've shown, it isn't.

In any event, humans have many physical traits that are more advantageous than gorillas. For example in his book Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast by the evolutionary biologist and Emeritus Professor of Biology at University College London, Lewis Wolpert, he tells us that humans have two remarkable features that make us significantly stand out in the animal kingdom (and indeed you can include all of life if you like). First, obviously, we have our massive and powerful brains. But the second feature is also really just as impressive. We have amazingly dexterous and controllable fingers. For example with training nearly everybody can learn to touch type on a keyboard with typing speeds over 60 words per minute. Obviously we didn't develop this muscle control so that we could write posts on internet forums quickly. Instead it was almost certainly to help us with the construction and use of tools, and the expansion of our brain probably happened in conjunction with the improvement of our finger dexterity. How do gorilla tools compare to human ones - even proto-human tools? For that matter, how do they compare to Chimpanzee tools, which are share a more recent ancestor than gorillas.

I suspect the reason for the difference in strength is very much related to behaviour. I would presume that early humans moved around far more, so needed far more endurance and agility. The use of tools meant they didn't need extreme strength to get food, but rather good muscle control. Using dexterity and brains opened up many new food sources such as seafood, nuts with hard shells, hard to catch game etc. which also had much lower risks of the hunter/gatherer being harmed in the process of getting the food (slow animals tend to have other forms of protection or be larger, meaning higher risk in hunting - being able to set traps or not take animals on in hand to claw fights to the death is an obvious survival advantage).

One only needs to look at the sporting areas where really massive and strong people excel, compared to where skinnier (but not necessarily skinny) people excel to see the advantages. Massive people are slower runners - both short and long distance. Skinnier people do better in high jump, and javelin. Skinner people are better swimmers. etc.

Backglass wrote:

TheProwler wrote:Humans haven't been able to travel past their moon, yet they think they have the universe figured out. So smug. So overconfident.

The religious have only faith, ritual and primitive superstition, yet they think they have the universe figured out. So smug. So overconfident.

(Miss me? )

I agree.

I missed you immensely.




(Who is he again?)

It seems people are hellbent on repeating only what they've been told by other sources - school, church, etc..

There is no interest here in expanding discussions past the discussion that have already been held elsewhere. Hyperlinks to sources are fine - but trying to fill in the missing pieces (or, the missing links) is what I am interested in. PLAYER says she doesn't think that anything has been proven yet - so there are other possibilities. But I really don't see any interest in talking about anything that hasn't already talked about. To discard all other possibilities because they haven't been the focus of the mainstream science community or the mainstream religious community is not something I will do. But it seems I'm the only one willing to talk about it.

owheelj is so focused on who is the better athlete, man or gorilla, that he is missing the bigger picture. Sure, that is open for discussion. But it shouldn't be held to a higher importance than it deserves.

I've read generally accepted theories that Cro-Magnon man killed off the Neanderthals. That supposedly happened in a relatively small part of the world. Nobody seems to want to investigate what was happening in other areas of the world and how homo sapiens sapiens were somehow the only human species to survive. In the homo genus, we're it. No others homos out there. Were we somehow genetically programmed to destroy all other homos? Is there another genus that felt this great need to kill off their cousins?

Why has nobody commented on the numerous paintings of spaceships and aliens?

Prowler people are open to other ideas, but this is a thread entitled "evolution ... fact or not". Most people are arguing for evolution as a fact, and they have extremely good arguments that no-one has refuted. The thread has become you questioning evolution and everyone else patiently trying to explain how evolution answers your question, then you complaining that the answers are too mainstream. What's more, you already accepted the fact of evolution several pages ago!

Evolution is very hard to argue against, because it's such a good theory. Spacemen and a "many creator" hypothesis are interesting ideas that don't exclude evolution as a working theory. If you really want some debate on those, open a new thread about them. Alternatively provide evidence as to why they're a better theory than evolution.

This thread is so boring. You guys should call each other stupid more often and tell each other to shut up.

Hey you, stupid! SHUT UP.

xelabale wrote:Prowler people are open to other ideas, but this is a thread entitled "evolution ... fact or not". Most people are arguing for evolution as a fact, and they have extremely good arguments that no-one has refuted. The thread has become you questioning evolution and everyone else patiently trying to explain how evolution answers your question, then you complaining that the answers are too mainstream. What's more, you already accepted the fact of evolution several pages ago!

Evolution is very hard to argue against, because it's such a good theory. Spacemen and a "many creator" hypothesis are interesting ideas that don't exclude evolution as a working theory. If you really want some debate on those, open a new thread about them. Alternatively provide evidence as to why they're a better theory than evolution.

When did I argue against evolution? I tried to discuss possibilities that evolution is not the only answer to the process of our creation or formation.

I have much to talk about. But I can't lay it all down on the table at once. The problem, I think, is that people are not willing to discuss. They are all too worried about defending their beliefs. So they want to argue.

Read the title of the thread

Now start another with your ideas.

TheProwler wrote:It seems people are hellbent on repeating only what they've been told by other sources - school, church, etc..

There is no interest here in expanding discussions past the discussion that have already been held elsewhere. Hyperlinks to sources are fine - but trying to fill in the missing pieces (or, the missing links) is what I am interested in. PLAYER says she doesn't think that anything has been proven yet - so there are other possibilities. But I really don't see any interest in talking about anything that hasn't already talked about. To discard all other possibilities because they haven't been the focus of the mainstream science community or the mainstream religious community is not something I will do. But it seems I'm the only one willing to talk about it.

"Not proven" in science means there is absolutely 100% no chance of any other possibility and it certainly does not mean other theories are equal or even possibly true. The Earth is not 6000 years old, unless God made it look as if it were old. The chances that evolution is wrong are very, very, very, very slim. Much of Evolution theory is fully and completely proven. Things DO change over time, mutations occur, natural selection occurs (though not always as you envision), etc. However, there are areas where the fossil record is skimpy and questions remain. This has more to do with how , exactly evolution occured than whether it occured.

There is no other theory with anything close to the evidence supporting Evolution. It might not be as "tight" a theory as saying " think the sun will rise tommorrow", but its pretty far from just a random guess that might be correct.

TheProwler wrote:owheelj is so focused on who is the better athlete, man or gorilla, that he is missing the bigger picture. Sure, that is open for discussion. But it shouldn't be held to a higher importance than it deserves.

Higher importance? We keep telling you that you have the details wrong, just are not understanding how evolution works. You keep fixating on this old idea that every future species has to be an improvement in all ways over anything before. That is not always the case. Further, you dismiss real ways that we show you biomass or strength or body ratios or whatever other term you wish to pull out really are superceded by our brains and opposable thumbs.

TheProwler wrote:I've read generally accepted theories that Cro-Magnon man killed off the Neanderthals. That supposedly happened in a relatively small part of the world. Nobody seems to want to investigate what was happening in other areas of the world and how homo sapiens sapiens were somehow the only human species to survive.

Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal co-existed for at least 25,000 years, so it was hardly a quick event. The "relatively small part of the world" was the entire range of both Cro-Magnon and homosapiens. There were other hominid-like species, though I don't know if they co-existed with Cro-Magnon. People look everywhere in the world for any kind of evidence and always have.

TheProwler wrote:In the homo genus, we're it. No others homos out there. Were we somehow genetically programmed to destroy all other homos? Is there another genus that felt this great need to kill off their cousins?

They co-existed for a long time, but eventually, yes, the Neandarthal died off. No one really knows exactly why or how. However, it is not so simply as to say that we simply destroyed Cro Magnon. More likely, the two competed for food, etc and eventually, slowly the Neandarthal just did not have space left to live. Diseases might have helpd. As to other species, that actually happens all the time. Species do out-compete and push out other species. It happens when things change, mostly.

TheProwler wrote:Why has nobody commented on the numerous paintings of spaceships and aliens?

Some people have asserted the show aliens, but there are other explanations. Most anthropologists say they are representations of earthly gods or spirits, not aliens. At any rate, that has little to do with evolution. Aliens could have assisted evolution or not. God could have or not. It is simply irrelevant to evolution.

TheProwler wrote:It seems people are hellbent on repeating only what they've been told by other sources - school, church, etc..

There is no interest here in expanding discussions past the discussion that have already been held elsewhere. Hyperlinks to sources are fine - but trying to fill in the missing pieces (or, the missing links) is what I am interested in. PLAYER says she doesn't think that anything has been proven yet - so there are other possibilities. But I really don't see any interest in talking about anything that hasn't already talked about. To discard all other possibilities because they haven't been the focus of the mainstream science community or the mainstream religious community is not something I will do. But it seems I'm the only one willing to talk about it.

Except that you're attacking discussion that has been held elsewhere. You're trying to disprove "macro-evolution" by saying some ridiculous things about muscle-efficiency (without explaining what you mean by that) and people rightly disagree with you on that.

I've read generally accepted theories that Cro-Magnon man killed off the Neanderthals. That supposedly happened in a relatively small part of the world. Nobody seems to want to investigate what was happening in other areas of the world and how homo sapiens sapiens were somehow the only human species to survive. In the homo genus, we're it. No others homos out there. Were we somehow genetically programmed to destroy all other homos? Is there another genus that felt this great need to kill off their cousins?

Well, if you want to discuss anthropology then you should've said that.

Anyway, it's a fairly safe bet to say waging war against eachother is inherent in our species. So why would it suprise you that we killed of the Neanderthals (and quite a few other homos as well)? Hell, there is pretty strong evidence that we weren't the only ones killing others but that other warlike homos also gleefully tried to kill us and eachother.

Snorri1234 wrote:Except that you're attacking discussion that has been held elsewhere. You're trying to disprove "macro-evolution" by saying some ridiculous things about muscle-efficiency (without explaining what you mean by that) and people rightly disagree with you on that.

Way back on page 15 I said:

TheProwler wrote:Someone else (elsewhere) has presented a clear explanation of how macroevolution would come about. With a lost less words. No offense, it's just that I don't see any indication that anyone is willing to discuss any new ideas.

I thought you would understand that clear explanation means I understand it clearly.

My intent was to expand this discussion past the topic in it's title. How many freaking times can you people continue with the same discussions about evolution? You've been talking about the same stuff for years, with no real change to the content. Do you really need an esteem boost so badly that you constantly seek out arguments with Bible freaks about evolution?

Maybe I should have started a new thread - but that would probably not work because the trolls and ultra-negative idiots ruin any threads that present new ideas. Aren't you aware if this fact? So I thought I'd go off on a bit of a tangent in a thread that deals with a little bit of what I had wanted to talk about.

But the uncontrollable urge of people here to argue, instead of discuss and brainstorm, is something I cannot control.

I could respond to everything else I read, but it seems that 95% of what I say is ignored. People are too busy saying "Evolution is true!!! For the win!! Yah me!!!!" Nobody is willing to step out of their little "this is what I know" box.

The thing is that you are arguing from an unproveable stance. Yes, it's possible that the perfectly logical and valid explanations for evolution aren't true in some regards, but you're not giving a scientific explanation for it.

TheProwler wrote:I could respond to everything else I read, but it seems that 95% of what I say is ignored. People are too busy saying "Evolution is true!!! For the win!! Yah me!!!!" Nobody is willing to step out of their little "this is what I know" box.

Nothing you have presented is actually counter to Evolution. Further, all you have shown is a link to a few paintings and such that are very far from conclusive about anything. In addition, I don't believe anyone here is saying aliens absolutely could not have come to Earth. It just has too little evidence to be a credible scientific theory. Finally, this has been discussed in other threads. THIS thread is about whether Evolution is or is not true, not any theory someone wishes to present.

As for trolls... read any of your own posts lately?

It seems if I say "evolution", everyone wants to talk about evolution. If I show a link to some pictures of spaceships, everyone wants to talk about spaceships.

This isn't Point, Counterpoint. Well, it doesn't have to be. But nobody is interested in doing anything but arguing and trying to prove others (in this case, me) wrong. That's the problem here.

There are interesting ideas to discuss - they involve religion and history and culture and science. And they involve looking at how these things interrelate. But there is too much resistance on any one subject to make enough progress to pull everything together and see if, possibly, a greater truth is revealed.

It is what I expected. But I thought I'd take a chance...

Heroic Prowler.

Give us a clear, unambiguous statement that can be discussed.

A short one.

TheProwler wrote:It seems if I say "evolution", everyone wants to talk about evolution.

I know, how weird is that?

There are interesting ideas to discuss - they involve religion and history and culture and science. And they involve looking at how these things interrelate. But there is too much resistance on any one subject to make enough progress to pull everything together and see if, possibly, a greater truth is revealed.

You are pretty much bullshitting your way through heaps of evidence which makes you wrong to prove a "greater truth"?

At least contradictory shit-disturbers lead to "lively" discussion.

TheProwler wrote:It seems if I say "evolution", everyone wants to talk about evolution. If I show a link to some pictures of spaceships, everyone wants to talk about spaceships.

This isn't Point, Counterpoint. Well, it doesn't have to be. But nobody is interested in doing anything but arguing and trying to prove others (in this case, me) wrong. That's the problem here.

There are interesting ideas to discuss - they involve religion and history and culture and science. And they involve looking at how these things interrelate. But there is too much resistance on any one subject to make enough progress to pull everything together and see if, possibly, a greater truth is revealed.

It is what I expected. But I thought I'd take a chance...

Yeah, truly strange. A thread is titled "is evolution real?" and gee.. people actually want to talk about EVOLUTION and not every theory you happen to bring up.

Yep, definitely a sign of closed minds there!

Pretty sure I explained why I didn't just start a new thread entitled something like "Alternate Theories Regarding the Creation and Evolution of our Species".

Besides that, you would still be so focused on what you have already discussed before, again and again and again and again, that you wouldn't bring anything new to the table.

Just as none of you have brought anything new to this table. Nothing new.

You have it all figured out.

No chance you are wrong.

Also, no original thought.