Evolution Theories

[jhsmurray 0]

This discussion is biased towards *person* sapiens as the superior species.

When considering evolutionary theory, if you qualify a succesful race to be:

A succesful race that can reproduce the most (and most viable) offspring

then my money is with bacteria

 

I have a theory about the next evolution of *person* sapiens (correct terminology for humans).

First of all, thanks for bringing up such an interesting topic.

Sorry, but how is *person* sapiens the correct terminology for humans?

Some anthropologists call us h_o_m_o sapiens (both modern humans and anatomically modern humans - our immediate predecessor), while others assert that we modern humans are h_o_m_o sapiens sapiens.

 

Something you all failed to mention is that human evolution seems to be leading towards a combination of a biological and technological synthesis.

I like your point. Our technology plays a major role in what defines us. A popular theory is that we basically overran any competition hundreds of thousands of years ago with the distinct advantage of better tools and use of fire, among other things. A side note: One of Michael Crichton's books (I think it was "Prey") points out that if we homogenize all our global cultural and intellectual facets then we doom ourselves, because it is diversity which protects us as a species. This danger leveraged with technology (eg the internet). It's an interesting read.

 

I think it's important to remember that evolutionary theory is based on struggle. That is how the representatives of genetic drift (thanks for pointing out the term, morosophos) are "selected" to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation, but only if they meet the requirements to survive. WIth technology to help us survive many environmental challenges, then this drift will not be quite so hindered.

 

But there are many ways to die (as a race), and mother nature can be a very real threat. But this doesnt really apply to the current thread - I mean how can people evolve and be "selected" to survive a massive meteor collision?

[Albus Dumbledore 0]

first off, this is for everyone who said that evolution is a theory... and of course it is.... but hence he put Theory 1, 2 and 3 not fact 1, 2, and 3...

@jhsmurray The filter on the forums blocks the word H*O*M*O but that is what they meant.


Now to the subject,

Although evolution is a theory and is being worked on the become facts. I totally believe in it. I an agonistic, which basically means that i am kind of iffy about the existence of god, but in my terms even more so the fact that he does not have all of this great power to create earth and life, and emotions.

And i have not ever head of thinking such as your

Just as the dinosaurs went extinct because they were the top of the food chain humans will go extinct as well

thats not the exact quote but close enough

I have never heard of that and i think that it will never happen. But i could be wrong, i think that humans maybe some day will evolve into somthing greater than humans, maybe aliens, and we will leave this planet and let the normal humans start themselves over again then the theory's of aliens wont be an theory it'll be a fact muhahaha -joking-

[the_aggie10 0]

I have a theory about the next evolution of *person* sapiens (correct terminology for humans). Well actually 3 theories.
Theory one:

Humans will not evolve one more time before the end of the world. But instead deevolve because we have had it in the spot light for far to long. *person* sapiens have been the most dominent creatures on the planet.

Theory two:

Humans have evolve thousands of times already. Every time we get smarter and smarter and make a great stride in any field whether it is Science (mostly science though) to Language Arts. Like the first human in space we evolve enough to get the inteligence of building a rocket or space craft that will go in space.

Theory three:

Humans will be wipped out before we have a chance to evolve. Like the dinosaurs lay live as the dominent creatures of the planet for millions of years. We are going to be the dominent creatures of the planet for millions of years too then be wipped out. Mostly by the climate changing far to fast for humans to adapt too.

isnt theory one and three the same? but i think that we will evolve into something super-human, or super-natural, whichever. We are supernatural to apes so what we evolve into will be super-natural (human) to what we presently are. What causes evolution? is it just one mutation on someone who has babies, who has babies, and so on and so forth? cause that would take millions of years, so who knows? there may not even be another big change before we are all killed. well thats a theory. have fun with this topic everyone

[matak 2]

Now, all of you who comented evolution bring *person* sapiens as the only one who can evolve. All you thought of is evolution of yourself or how can you be stronger, faster, smarter.Well i think that is not the point of evolution. I think that evolution is process that lasts from the begining of the universe. All of nature as it egzists now in our minds is what "evolved" from big bang.So what do you think the next step is?I think that we should divide our evolution in two ways.1. Evolution that we can be part of. To be more precise, it is combining all of our knowlege into making US more powerfull (whatever it would me from mechanical implants, to Matrix enviroment)2. Evolution that we dont want to be part of. End of the world!!! Who wants to be here when it happens? Nobody. Even the Pope it self would split if he would have a chance.Both of these will happen sooner or later, and the point is not to be "afraid" of any version of events. When the time comes we will be ready.Evolution is deeply connected to survival. From nature who wants to survive our exploatation, from us who want to survive in nature.We are all tested on evolution every day and we don't even realize that.Some samples:1. How can we encounter an alien race when we hate each other beacouse of the color of our skin?2. Imagine that Aliens really come here and that they are all gay that would be awsome...Evolution is nothing more than giving the best from your self every day!!!P.S.And now my hosting is going to evolve a bit

[Absolute 0]

i think you may be correct in that we could devolve. I would hope that we are going to evolve a few more times. I dont know how but i would like to believe we will. Reality steps in though and i see us blowing the hell out of eachother in some war or something senseless because we cannot treat each other with respect. There will always be one idiot out there who is hellbent on taking over the world or someone who cannot just settle for what they have and want more. We are destroying the world and we all know it since we see the ice caps melting and we even know what is causing it. But are we truly doing anything about it? No! Until we actually stop using oil and go to something that is plentyfull and easy to produce we will continue killing ourselves. But nobody is taking any real action to stop it. I find it hard to believe that the United States and other countries with all it technological prowess cannot put in place an alternative to todays oil. I used to drive a car that got 58 miles a gallon. That car is now off the market and youd be lucky to find one that gets anything close to it now. Thats truly sad.

[kasm 0]

I have a theory about the next evolution of *person* sapiens (correct terminology for humans). Well actually 3 theories.

 

Theory one:

Humans will not evolve one more time before the end of the world. But instead deevolve because we have had it in the spot light for far to long. *person* sapiens have been the most dominent creatures on the planet.

 

Theory two:

Humans have evolve thousands of times already. Every time we get smarter and smarter and make a great stride in any field whether it is Science (mostly science though) to Language Arts. Like the first human in space we evolve enough to get the inteligence of building a rocket or space craft that will go in space.

 

Theory three:

Humans will be wipped out before we have a chance to evolve. Like the dinosaurs lay live as the dominent creatures of the planet for millions of years. We are going to be the dominent creatures of the planet for millions of years too then be wipped out. Mostly by the climate changing far to fast for humans to adapt too.

 

1- Sorry I didn't notice this topic before, so I will respond to the original post first.

 

2- We again in cycle. The poster must define what he/she means by "evolution" and what the poster means by "theory". Is "theory" the scientific theory or any hypothesis or direction. I guess the poster uses "theory" in public definition i.e. the second option up. That all these three theories are suggestion, hypotheses or thought. Then there are long way to prove these these hypotheses to become theory [i will quote from some previous postings in this forum before:]

- The hypothesis or the theory in the common meaning will be considered scientific theory if it satisfied many requirements among them:

 

logically "OR" Empirically tested and based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments . A theory which cannot be tested empirically is useless for researchers.

 

lead to predictions or reproductions that are testable. A theory which has not made any actually verified predictions might prove useful in the future when its predictions are verified, but not currently. A theory which cannot provide reproductions (to utilise present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event or state of affairs) may also be useful in the future, but not currently. If a theory's results cannot be reproduced, it is impossible to determine if those results were ever actually valid (rather than the result of error or fraud).

 

falsifiable (i.e., cases must exist in which the theory can be imagined to be invalid). For example saying "Things fall down" will be invalid if we find an object fall up. When a theory is not falsifiable, it is impossible to tell if it is true or not, and thus it won't be possible to correct it via experimentation. & Falsifiable

 

So one important requirement to be a theory is to help us to predict future events. For example When we launch a satellite we know from our theories where it will be after 2 days for example or when it will arrive to its planned position.

See "What is Science" at : http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

and "What is Scientific Method?" at: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

3- There are many types of evolution. So it is better to count the types of the evolution. . There are six types of evolution in my accumulated knowledge base from many sources]: I will quote them from my previous posting:

There are 6 types of evolution known to me:

 

(i) Cosmic Evolution (the origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing, there are 5 different theories competing . Each has its strength or weakness. The famous one the "big bang" theory does not address the major question, "where did everything come from?" . How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion causes only disorder and dist ructions? Also the Big Bang also violates two out of three Laws of Thermodynamics);

 

(ii) Chemical Evolution:(the development of the higher elements from hydrogen- assumptions);

 

iii) Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets amount to anything more than "fairy tales," and imagination has no part in real science);

 

iv) Organic Evolution (the origin of organic life. Spontaneous Generation as the Origin of Life, despite the apparent contradiction to empirical science). Francesco Reid and Louis Pasteur have succeeded in disproving Spontaneous Generation long time ago.

 

(v) Macro Evolution (Large-scale, or major changes from one kind of life form to another (assumption) involving innovations in structure or body plan, or new organs. Nothing approved that happen and is still lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record, and the harmful trend of genetic mutation. ,

 

(vi) Micro Evolution (small-scale, or minor changes and adaptations within a population of life forms i.e. the variation within the kinds). This observed and documented. It does not result in leaps between one kind of life form and another, but in a wide variation of types of this same form. Although we observe many varieties within the group, a finch remains a finch, a virus a virus, a moth a moth, etc. We are familiar with breeding process to produce various kinds of horses, cows, cheep, dogs, cats,...etc.. The "variation within a kind" is what Darwin observed in the mid-1800's, and what we still observe today... Also We all know and recognise the viruses and bacteria development as well as the development of the defence system But no scientist has ever seen a host animal develop a new defence mechanism causing it to evolve into a higher life-from; similarly, no one has ever witnessed a parasite develop a new, improved attack method that ultimately resulted in its transformation into a new species. (macro evolution if occurred) .

4- How can the poster proves the first theory or hypothesis? what he/she means by "human evolution"?. What he/she means by "the end of the world". Is that what some religions are teaching. I don't think there are any scientific point for the "end of the world"

 

5- Also from where that human be characterised as "the most dominant creatures on the planet. "?

 

6- In what called theory two[i.e. hypothesis 2, I can not tolerate calling it theory]: "Humans have evolve thousands of times already". From where came "human evolved these many times?"

 

7- Getting smarter or the discoveries in science , exploration of space, building rockets, launching satellites, landing on the moon, sending robots to some planets can not be considered as "evolution". They are achievements, conclusions, deduction or engineering of our accumulated knowledge. They are mutual progress using our brains given to us and advantage knowledge stored in our brain or documented in books, magazines, research, theses etc.... Deduction theory from previous theories is not evolution but deductions.

 

8- Theory three or hypothesis 3 is an imagination that the Human will be wiped up "Humans will be wiped out before we have a chance to evolve. Like the dinosaurs lay live as the dominant creatures of the planet for millions of years." It is the poster who think that i.e it is his/her belief., expectation or imagination. .

 

9- Evolution is not science nor scientific theory : [Evolution Is Not Science Nor Scientific Theory: at: http://forums.xisto.com/index.php?shoc=34318= ] or

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

[Rap_Speedy 0]

*

I have a theory about the next evolution of *person* sapiens (correct terminology for humans). Well actually 3 theories.

 

Theory one:

Humans will not evolve one more time before the end of the world. But instead deevolve because we have had it in the spot light for far to long. *person* sapiens have been the most dominent creatures on the planet.

 

Theory two:

Humans have evolve thousands of times already. Every time we get smarter and smarter and make a great stride in any field whether it is Science (mostly science though) to Language Arts. Like the first human in space we evolve enough to get the inteligence of building a rocket or space craft that will go in space.

 

Theory three:

Humans will be wipped out before we have a chance to evolve. Like the dinosaurs lay live as the dominent creatures of the planet for millions of years. We are going to be the dominent creatures of the planet for millions of years too then be wipped out. Mostly by the climate changing far to fast for humans to adapt too.

 

1- Sorry I didn't notice this topic before, so I will respond to the original post first.

 

2- We again in cycle. The poster must define what he/she means by "evolution" and what the poster means by "theory". Is "theory" the scientific theory or any hypothesis or direction. I guess the poster uses "theory" in public definition i.e. the second option up. That all these three theories are suggestion, hypotheses or thought. Then there are long way to prove these these hypotheses to become theory [i will quote from some previous postings in this forum before:]

QUOTE

- The hypothesis or the theory in the common meaning will be considered scientific theory if it satisfied many requirements among them:

 

logically "OR" Empirically tested and based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments . A theory which cannot be tested empirically is useless for researchers.

 

lead to predictions or reproductions that are testable. A theory which has not made any actually verified predictions might prove useful in the future when its predictions are verified, but not currently. A theory which cannot provide reproductions (to utilise present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event or state of affairs) may also be useful in the future, but not currently. If a theory's results cannot be reproduced, it is impossible to determine if those results were ever actually valid (rather than the result of error or fraud).

 

falsifiable (i.e., cases must exist in which the theory can be imagined to be invalid). For example saying "Things fall down" will be invalid if we find an object fall up. When a theory is not falsifiable, it is impossible to tell if it is true or not, and thus it won't be possible to correct it via experimentation. & Falsifiable

 

So one important requirement to be a theory is to help us to predict future events. For example When we launch a satellite we know from our theories where it will be after 2 days for example or when it will arrive to its planned position.

 

See "What is Science" at : http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

and "What is Scientific Method?" at: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

3- There are many types of evolution. So it is better to count the types of the evolution. . There are six types of evolution in my accumulated knowledge base from many sources]: I will quote them from my previous posting:

QUOTE

There are 6 types of evolution known to me:

 

(i) Cosmic Evolution (the origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing, there are 5 different theories competing . Each has its strength or weakness. The famous one the "big bang" theory does not address the major question, "where did everything come from?" . How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion causes only disorder and dist ructions? Also the Big Bang also violates two out of three Laws of Thermodynamics);

 

(ii) Chemical Evolution:(the development of the higher elements from hydrogen- assumptions);

 

iii) Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets amount to anything more than "fairy tales," and imagination has no part in real science);

 

iv) Organic Evolution (the origin of organic life. Spontaneous Generation as the Origin of Life, despite the apparent contradiction to empirical science). Francesco Reid and Louis Pasteur have succeeded in disproving Spontaneous Generation long time ago.

 

(v) Macro Evolution (Large-scale, or major changes from one kind of life form to another (assumption) involving innovations in structure or body plan, or new organs. Nothing approved that happen and is still lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record, and the harmful trend of genetic mutation. ,

 

(vi) Micro Evolution (small-scale, or minor changes and adaptations within a population of life forms i.e. the variation within the kinds). This observed and documented. It does not result in leaps between one kind of life form and another, but in a wide variation of types of this same form. Although we observe many varieties within the group, a finch remains a finch, a virus a virus, a moth a moth, etc. We are familiar with breeding process to produce various kinds of horses, cows, cheep, dogs, cats,...etc.. The "variation within a kind" is what Darwin observed in the mid-1800's, and what we still observe today... Also We all know and recognise the viruses and bacteria development as well as the development of the defence system But no scientist has ever seen a host animal develop a new defence mechanism causing it to evolve into a higher life-from; similarly, no one has ever witnessed a parasite develop a new, improved attack method that ultimately resulted in its transformation into a new species. (macro evolution if occurred) .

 

4- How can the poster proves the first theory or hypothesis? what he/she means by "human evolution"?. What he/she means by "the end of the world". Is that what some religions are teaching. I don't think there are any scientific point for the "end of the world"

 

5- Also from where that human be characterised as "the most dominant creatures on the planet. "?

 

6- In what called theory two[i.e. hypothesis 2, I can not tolerate calling it theory]: "Humans have evolve thousands of times already". From where came "human evolved these many times?"

 

7- Getting smarter or the discoveries in science , exploration of space, building rockets, launching satellites, landing on the moon, sending robots to some planets can not be considered as "evolution". They are achievements, conclusions, deduction or engineering of our accumulated knowledge. They are mutual progress using our brains given to us and advantage knowledge stored in our brain or documented in books, magazines, research, theses etc.... Deduction theory from previous theories is not evolution but deductions.

 

8- Theory three or hypothesis 3 is an imagination that the Human will be wiped up "Humans will be wiped out before we have a chance to evolve. Like the dinosaurs lay live as the dominant creatures of the planet for millions of years." It is the poster who think that i.e it is his/her belief., expectation or imagination. .

 

9- Evolution is not science nor scientific theory : [Evolution Is Not Science Nor Scientific Theory: at: http://forums.xisto.com/index.php?shoc=34318= ] or

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Notice from jlhaslip:

Added proper Quote tags

 

and i was the one who only knew 2 evolution theories

Edited November 25, 2006 by jlhaslip (see edit history)