The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and Tolkien - The One Ring

by **runes** » Sun May 20, 2001 6:58 pm

i am an evolutionist too, but often while in discussions with creationists, the question comes up- if apes evovled into us, why are there still apes, and why haven't we evovlved yet? well, it is my thinking that necessity creates evolution. At the time, apes moved around, and then during the continental shifts, climate changed, hence they 'needed' to change. we can see the evolutionary steps (from neaanderthal, cromagman (or whatever) to us...) is it also because or climates are fixed that we don't change? In say a million years, if everything is to stay the way it is, we will se no change? Yet, in a million years if the climate is to change, will we see a difference in ourselves or other animals? if we were all to live at the tops of mountains for a thousand years, would our lungs grow in capacity/strength to allow for the thinner air? note: i hope the evolution/creation thing doesn't get brought up, i was just wondering what everyone that about these topics.

by **Annael** » Sun May 20, 2001 7:24 pm

I don't mean to turn this into a creation vs evolution thing, but... I do believe it fits close to your question. Has there ever been a single 'evolution' proven to ever have happen?

by **vincent** » Sun May 20, 2001 7:37 pm

Man did not evolve from apes, or monkeys, we evolved from homo-erectus, Etc.. People seem to think that means apes, but they evolved on their own. We share common background but we did not evolve from monkeys, or apes, they evolved on their own. At least thats what i understand perhaps others who have gone to school for this type of thing can explain it better, or correct me. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>

by **River_Daughter** » Sun May 20, 2001 7:41 pm

I agree with vincent. One theory is we evolved from a common ancestor of the apes. This evolved into neanderthal, homo-erectus etc. Apes just didn't evolve. But what do I know. I'm only 14.

by **Falkeep** » Sun May 20, 2001 7:53 pm

The theory is that all primates share a common anscestor... a proto-primate and that all of the modern primates (including man) evolved through different branches into the various families, genus's and species of primates. As for "provably" evolved creatures, Annael, Darwin used what had happened to various species of south sea finches who had "evolved" on different islands in isolation from other species on other islands. This isolation resulted in the different species having different physical traits and habits. Along this line... I do not believe in paradoxes. In my mind, paradoxes are simply things we haven't figured out yet (for example, I have answered Zenon's Paradox about never reaching any place because their are an infinate number of points between any two other points and, if you have to travel halfway and then halfway, etc. you can "never" reach the other point because there are always more points, and thus more halfway points before you get there). Along tis line, the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" question is easy to answer. Mutations happen in the genes and show up in following generations. Therefore, something that wasn't a chicken had a mutation of its genes and laid an egg from which was hatached a chicken. Thus, since something that was not a chicken did not mutate INTO a chicken itself (a la Star Trek), the egg came first because the parent was not the same as the child.

by **runes** » Sun May 20, 2001 8:04 pm

so anyways....... <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0> do you think it is safe to say that if our climate etc remains constant we will not change, but if it changes, we might? Or have we as humans reached the 'ultimate' stage of evolution? I think not. I think that say, a million years (heck maybe less) we will look different. I think we might just lose some of our simian features, and while still looking human, we will look different from those of today, however subtle it is. Even just 300 years ago, people looked different. Not in facial features. but people were smaller. A 6' man would have been a giant in the 1500s, now the average height for a man is just shy of 6 feet. And on evolution- do you think that 'evolution' should not factor in man-made aspects? Sya in a hundred years we will all have bigger hearts or something, because of some sort of medical breakthrough, now is that evolution? Is our own evolution to be dictated by our own actions, rather than that of nature?

by **Annael** » Sun May 20, 2001 8:06 pm

But you forget, a point takes up no space, therefore, you have an infinite amount of nothing. Exactly how fast your nothing is decreasing in comparison to how fast your infinite is growing decides exactly how much this infinite amount of nothing actually is. You know, L'Hopital's Rule can sometimes help. How about the Harmonic Series, the Sequence converges to 0, but the Series diverges, who would have thunk it?

by **vincent** » Sun May 20, 2001 8:39 pm

And people say the quality of posts is declining<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0> do you think it is safe to say that if our climate etc remains constant we will not change, but if it changes, we might? Or have we as humans reached the 'ultimate' stage of evolution? Of course we are still changing, random mutations are still happening, and thats what drives evolution. And on evolution- do you think that 'evolution' should not factor in man-made aspects? Sya in a hundred years we will all have bigger hearts or something, because of some sort of medical breakthrough, now is that evolution? Is our own evolution to be dictated by our own actions, rather than that of nature? I think that is stil a form of evolution, but not the classic form of evolution that we think of when someone mentions it. Once again i am these are only opinions, that i have come up with on my own from reading, so if you wish to correct me go right ahead please<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0>

by **Falkeep** » Sun May 20, 2001 9:00 pm

Annael wrote: "But you forget, a point takes up no space, therefore, you have an infinite amount of nothing. Exactly how fast your nothing is decreasing in comparison to how fast your infinite is growing decides exactly how much this infinite amount of nothing actually is." Ok, I'll go into it. The whole concept is wrong. The theory is that a point has no dimensons. I contest this. There is something that is the smallest thing that exists. We do not know what it actually is (and we may never actually know) but there is SOMETHING which has no component parts and which is smaller than anything else in existence. The size of that object is also the dimenson of a point. A point represents something in the real universe and, therefore, it cannot have less dimension than the smallest thing. Thus, a point HAS a dimension, it is just not a measurable dimension. As a result, there are a finite, not an infinite, number of points between any two other points... the number, however is greater than we can calculate. Since there are a finite number of points then there is a point that is at a definable halfway point between those two points, and another between them and so on. Eventually, the last point before the end point is reached and there is no additional halfway point. THUS, the end point is reached after traveling past a FINITE number of halway points and there IS no paradox. The theory is wrong and the belief that their is a paradox is the indication that we are on the wrong track and need to redefine our arguments. Now, for my next trick, I prove that black is white and end up getting myself killed at a zebra crossing. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>

by **vincent** » Sun May 20, 2001 10:30 pm

How do you know theres is something thats the smallest thing in the world?

by **Falkeep** » Sun May 20, 2001 10:38 pm

How can there NOT be? If something has an actual existence in the real universe, if it has mass and/or substence of any amount, then it has a size, whether we are capable of measuring it or not. And if something has a size then it has to be larger, smaller or the exact same size as something else real. At some point, the bottom is reached and there is something that is smaller than anything else. Granted, we keep going deeper and deeper towards finding things that push the limits of what we can concieve or measure but there is something which is the basic building block beyond which there is nothing. In anything measurable, their may be no upper limit (the end of space might be one example of this) but their is ALWAYS a beginning. Besides, if my theory about paradoxes not existing is correct, if they are simply things which we do not properly understand or have the right answers to, then it fits with explaining Zenon's Paradox. But back to my first question in this post... how can their NOT be a smallest item in the universe?

by **tuile** » Mon May 21, 2001 12:41 am

<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-blush.gif"border=0> crud. crimme. sorry. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>

by **tuile** » Mon May 21, 2001 1:07 am

Scientists (well, my proff for one!) do cite some examples of evolution: Direct Evidence: Domestic breeds (artificial selection) Variation observed in the adaptation of a species that is introduced to a new area. The example was house sparrows that came form Europe. There was variation observed int their color (and wing length) as they adapted to new territories. Evolution of Insecticide Resistance. Insects evolved a resistence to DDT in three years. Three years!!! Amazing little bundle!! Indirect evidence: Fossil record. The evolution of the horse is a fine example. Homologous structures. An example of this is the similarities in the forelimbs of frogs, lizards, birds, humans, rats, whales, bats. The plan of the forelimb is the same, with variation to allow different uses. Example of a common genetic code. Transfer RNA molecule. I don't have any notes about this one, except I think it was another example of a common genetic code. Help on this anyone???? For our class, evolution was simply defined as life changes which demonstrated descent with modification. Any changes induced by us would I think, be classified as artificial selection, as it is we or us who is imposing the restrictions and conditions for living, not the "natural" environment. Evolution due to the natural environment can be seen in some degree in the high dwelling folk in the Himalayas and the Andes. I believe some studies have been done on their adaptations to their environment, but I don't know offhand what they were. I would think increased lung size???, increased capacity for the blood to carry oxegyn ( I can't remember the physiology !!)???? Faster transfer of carbon monoxide (crud, or is it dioxide??? I gotta go to bed!!!) and oxygen in the lungs??? As to the ape question, I think others have answered it great. We share a common ancestor with the apes; we did not evolve exactly FROM apes. The apes are doing great in their environment, provided we stop taking it from them and killing them, etc. etc. But there is still some amount of mutation occuring. I don't think at all that we are the finished product of evolution. I think that is a form of arrogance on our part to assume that we're done! It's over folks! We're it! Look, but this is all from someone who's only taken one course in Evolution and Heredity and one course in Systematics. But,each course has led me to believe that we hardly know the tip of the iceberg. The process and mechanisms are soooo complex! Simply amazing. In fact, if you look at the absolute beauty in the harmony in a well-suited ecosystem and the amazing part each creature, plant, spore, and bacteria play a part, well for me, it makes me embarressed that we don't work with or within our environmnent better. But, that's just me! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0> We have no idea of what is to come, or how we'll handle it (genetically speaking!) As to whether or not any changes will be induced by our own actions or nature's... at this stage, it seems kinda hard to distinguish between "our influences" and "natural selection" in a way. Our impact on the air, water and land... maybe as to genetic engeneering, weeelll, I don't like that subject. Makes me nervous. "You are meddeling with powers you can't possibly comprehend" -- the little university guy in Indiana Jones?? Something like that! I don't have a clue as to what we will have to respond to next. For me, my definition of evolution would not include anything we did for ourselves. It almost seems like cheating!!!<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0> Like we have removed ourselves from the game and then claimed to have improved it, when we didn't understand it from the beginning. It seems to discredit the amazing acheivements of the snail (that shell!!) or the parasite ( that fecudity!!!) or the bat ( that hearing!!). I don't think fiddling with our own building blocks counts. Sorry, getting pooped, rambling!!!<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0> Whassup with the paradox thingy? I'm not sure of the connection. Something simple I missed??? Why would there have to be a smallest thing? Is there a biggest thing? Perhaps it depends upon our definition of a particular thing? The way we reduce down, down, down,..am I arguing against myself in some strange fashion??? Lemme know, pleasse, <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif"border=0> (I'll read this in the morning and smack myself on the head for not having seen the connection, huh? <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0> ) bye..have a nice nite.

by **Axordil** » Mon May 21, 2001 7:20 am

Now that's odd...this wasn't a double post initially. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif"border=0>

by **Axordil** » Mon May 21, 2001 7:20 am

Yeah, but they've got "top men" working on this too. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0>

by **vincent** » Mon May 21, 2001 1:43 pm

As far as the evolution Vs creation thing goes, i kind of think niether said is completly right, and am witholding judgement until further notice<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0> And i still dont understand why something cant be infinitly small?

by **Annael** » Mon May 21, 2001 2:06 pm

Falkeep, a point represents something in the real universe You have it backwards. Something in the real universe is used to represent a point. A point is a concept, an idea. Since we cannot put an idea in paper, we must use something concrete to represent a point.(ususally a point, the finer the pencil the smaller the dot, but a dot is not a point, it is just a physical representation of a point) A point exists in the same way as infinity. No one has ever seen infinity, no one will ever see infinity(at least while they are alive). These are mathematical concepts, or ideas. Tuile There is a difference between evolution and adaptation. Has there ever been a breed of dog, which is no longer a dog? For you staunch evols out there, can you show me one creature that has been proven to have evolved from another creature?

by **Falkeep** » Mon May 21, 2001 3:08 pm

Annael wrote: "You have it backwards. Something in the real universe is used to represent a point. A point is a concept, an idea. Since we cannot put an idea in paper, we must use something concrete to represent a point.(ususally a point, the finer the pencil the smaller the dot, but a dot is not a point, it is just a physical representation of a point) A point exists in the same way as infinity. No one has ever seen infinity, no one will ever see infinity(at least while they are alive). These are mathematical concepts, or ideas." Anael, you are reciting the existing and accepted dogma... I am saying I do not buy it... that the dogma and theory are wrong and the "paradox" is the indication that we have our definiations and arguments wrong. I say ther is no purpose, value or need for a point to NOT represent a real phyical location and that it can't be any smaller than whatever the smallest thing is. I understand what you are trying to expound and it is exactly what I am rejecting. You are looking inside the box for your answer and I am saying the answer does not exist inside the box. As for provable evolution to completeky different species... Neanderthal and Modern Man... different species from a common ancestor species who shared the earth for a time (until relitively recently... the have found evidence of the in the Middle East not too far from the time of Jesus, if I remember correctly) until Neanderthal finally became extinct. Tuile wrote: "Whassup with the paradox thingy? I'm not sure of the connection. Something simple I missed??? Why would there have to be a smallest thing? Is there a biggest thing? Perhaps it depends upon our definition of a particular thing? The way we reduce down, down, down,..am I arguing against myself in some strange fashion??? Lemme know, pleasse, (I'll read this in the morning and smack myself on the head for not having seen the connection, huh? ) bye..have a nice nite." I was using the example as a lead in to my "chicken or the egg" quandry to illustrate that there is no quandry and the existence of the question of paradox is an indication that we have it wrong. The very existence of the chicken is the evidence of mutated evolution and that the egg had to come before the chicken because the mutation occured in the chicken-parent's genetic structure and they them gave birth to the chicken... they were not a species that changed and physically became a chicken (contrary to what the "science" of Star Trek would have you believe about mutation from one form to another).

by **Annael** » Mon May 21, 2001 3:18 pm

So we throw Calculus right out the window? What would this world be without Calc? If we limit ourselves to something we already know about, why look any farther? Why bother looking for something other than fire, water, wind and earth? It is theory put into action that brings about new knowledge. Now, is there proof that neadrethals and humans evolved from the same creature? Is this mere speculation. Was there anyone to witness this miraculous event? Or is this just what some believe? I believe there is a problem defining different species. It must be defined using chromosome chains, not physical characteristics. If there were incontrivertial evidence of evolution, then there would be no arguement. Until proven, it is just a theory and to believe it is taking just as much a leap of faith as believing in Creation. It is just that you are putting your faith into the hands of humans interpreting bones. No proof, just conjecture.

by **Gwen** » Mon May 21, 2001 3:34 pm

Are you a member of the sect of folks who subscribe to Creation Science, which believes that the earth was created 10000 years ago by God and there hasn't been many changes since then, Annael?

by **Shelrond** » Mon May 21, 2001 3:47 pm

For incontrovertible proof that something can be infinitely small, I submit my paycheck as peoples exhibit A!!!

by **ILvEowyn** » Mon May 21, 2001 5:00 pm

First of all, evolution happens over a very very long period of time, at least that's my belief. Therefore it would be practically impossible for humans to monitor since it would take millions of years and we haven't even been here that long. Aslo, Humans are capable of living in any type of environment, so there's no need to adapt physiologically at this point.

by **Annael** » Mon May 21, 2001 5:24 pm

So are you saying that since what you are saying cannot be proven wrong, it is right? My question is why believe something that can't be proven right? If you are only saying that you can't be proven wrong, but can't prove you're right, you're taking a leap of faith. I though only 'religious' people did that. Or is evolution a facet of some religion? Concerning a point, why redefine a point? It has already been defined. Why not come up with your own unique term to describe what you are talking about? Why need you steal someone else's term? Gwen, Not at all. I can't say there has been no change at all. I just believe that the only thing that has occured is adaptation, not new creatures. As for the time, who knows?

by **podge&rog** » Mon May 21, 2001 5:59 pm

Ernst Mayr`s logical dissection of Darwin`s theory of natural selection. Obsevation 1. All species have such great potential fertility that their population size would increase exponentially if all individuals that are born reproduced successfully. Observation 2. Most populations are normally stable in size, except for seasonal fluctuations. Observation 3. Natural resources are limited. Inference 1. Production of more individuals than the environment can support leads to a struggle for existence among individuals of a population, with only a fraction of offspring surviving each generation. Observation 4. Individuals of a population vary extensively in their characteristics; no two individuals are exactly alike. Inference 2. Survival in the struggle for existence is not random, but depends in part on the hereditary constitution of the surviving individuals. Those individuals whose inherited characteristics fit them best to ther environment are likely to leave more offspring than less fit individuals. Inference 3. This unequal ability to survive and reproduce will lead to a gradual change in a population, with favourable characteristics accumulating over the generations. Adapted from Mayr, E. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. Natural selection is the differential success in reproduction, its product is adaptation of organisms to their environment, or Evolution. You want evide

by **Annael** » Mon May 21, 2001 6:07 pm

No I wantproof! Until proven, it is just a theory. Belief in an unproven theory smacks of religion. I thought the evolutionists were supposed to be above all that religious stuff and only believe what is proven.

by **Orc#5063** » Mon May 21, 2001 6:08 pm

Humans will no longer evolve. Evolution is fueled by natural selection, that is, only the members of the species with the qualities needed to survive will survive to pass on their genes. The weaker individuals with less desirable traits die and so too their genes die. In our society, EVERYONE (well most people) survive to pass on their genes. Millions who would have died due to genetic diseases, live to breed. Their genes are propagated along with everyone. Therefore, no evolution occurs because no one is dying off.

by **vincent** » Mon May 21, 2001 6:48 pm

I think you may be right too a point orc, but whos to say things will remain like this for much longer? perhaps a socity where people who have other qualitys, besides physical abilites will become important? maybe one in which intellignce, and mental ability are more valuble? Of course anything could happen, perhaps will nuke ourselves and people who are more resistent to radiation will survive? who can tell.

by **runes** » Mon May 21, 2001 7:40 pm

infinitely small... see Runes' - errr.....

by **tuile** » Tue May 22, 2001 12:20 am

Hey there! Hey runes, are you getting your threads confused??!! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0> Shelrond, I wanna compare!!! Thanks Falkeep for the explanation; somehow I missed the connection between your two paradoxes! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0> The smack on my forehead didn't hurt tooo much!!! For my own part, I still have a hard time accepting the idea of a smallest thing. It just seems like they keep finding small things (protons and such) made up of smaller things (gluons, quarks). But you have a good argument! Annael, hi, nice to meetcha! I think <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0> understand your questions!!! I like the whole question of faith. But, I think that evolution IS a theory. Nothing (in science anyway!) can be ultimately proven without a doubt. It is simply the theory that has not been proven wrong, over and over again, much as you have pointed out. Scientists have simply not found at this time, anything that proves this theory wrong (like finding mammal fossils in strata that would have preceeded their actual arrival ). The same stands for any other theory in science. I don't think this makes science, or evolution seem like a religion simply because of lack of first hand proof which would therefore result in a "leap of faith". ( proof which is hard to come by seeing our short time here so far!) For example, no one (as far as I know <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0> ) has "seen" a DNA molecule. Furthermore, there is no "goal" in evolution, as there often is in religion (perfection, salvation). Secondly, I don't know if it requires much more belief than it does when you get in your car. Your car functions within certain laws of physics (you don't expect it to take off and fly or move through a wall! bummer..), which are accepted as theory at this time as they have yet to be disproved. I do argee with you about the DNA identification stuff. In my systematics class, a large part was learning the impact that DNA sequencing was having on traditional cladistics and phenetics. It has "corrected" or re-arranged a few lines of descent as they were understood previously already. It does seem like it will be the most definitive tool of systematics. Little powerful,no? <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0> I'm not sure however, of your differentation between adaptation and evolution. I'll give you my understandings so you know were I'm coming from. Adaptation is a process of genetic change within a population, whereby a character's average state becomes improved with regards to a specific function. This can also be stated as a population's process of becoming better suited to an environment. Evolution in its broadest sense is just change over time. Biological evolution is the flux of proportions of the frequencies of different genotypes. Adaptation is one of the reasons for that flux. If you want to ascribe to one camp of theories that is still widely used (and disputed!), horses and donkeys are two different species because although a breeding between them yeilds an viable offspring, this offspring is infertile. The genetic differences between the two species have become so great as to interfere with reproduction, thus defining two separate species that share common descent due to common similarities both physical, genetic, and behavioral. Dogs are still a (domesticated: this is more artificial selection, not adaptation as a poodle has not become a poodle due to any advantages gained in environmental stresses with curly hair!!!) species (which ARE incredibly hard to define <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0> ) because they can still interbreed. They are superclose in their genetic makeup to wolves. And they interbreed! Agh! No perfection here! I think I have lost my focus. Sorry for rambling. But, I think that if you do accept adaptation, it makes it hard to completely reject evolution. You shouldn't "believe" in evolution, to my mind. You should always question it. That is a healthy basis for science. (which by the way, uses an awful lot of calc!! Grrr! Hard stuff!) If we simply put all of our "belief" in evolution, we may miss valuable parts of the puzzle!! (major bummer... <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0>) Oh hey, with regards to the time question: physics reveals alot about this, I just can't bring it to mind right now. Pathetic, my class just ended.<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif"border=0>

by **Falkeep** » Tue May 22, 2001 1:09 pm

I want to know why are the religious fanatics and cuckoos seem to think that science and faith are mutually exclusive. I believe in God. I am a deist. The one of the basic deist philosophies is that God created the universe AND the laws by which it operates. He "wrote the programs" as it were. He set everything in motion and he lets things happen according to the laws he created... he doesn't interfere. As far as the Earth goes, why do people have trouble believing that God could have created the process of eveolution or that he would create processes which take billions of years and work through minute and subtle changes. The ego of man is that he seems to think that if it doesn't happen fast enough for him to notice it, then it doesn't happen. God would work on his own time table... not ours. The other point I want to make, primarily to Annael, is that I have never before seen someone who wants to argue the pro-creation side who also hid behind the screen of the scientific method (although I guess you could make a case that the new breed of "scientists" who argue creationism do the same thing... I have just never actually met or talked to any of them). However, just because something cannot be "proven" at least to the satisfaction of man (or even of a man) does not mean it does not exist or isn't true or real. Unfortunately, the Age of Reason crushed out the Age of Enlightenment when man had no trouble with the concepts that some things can be known or believed without concrete proof. This was a great loss to man as a creature with higher concepts. One example of the problems of the "Reason" philosophy is illustrated very plainly in modern jury trials. There are things which people know to exist or to be true but for which no provable chain can be created. The mind is an incredible computer which processes countless pieces of information which we are not even aware of and which we cannot explain but which, never-the-less, have been weighed and measured and contemplated. I believe that "instinct" or "gut-reations" is simply the brain saying "I have calculated these things and this is the direction the evidence points or the way things come together". One illustration of this would be if a well-experienced cop "knows" something is going to happen or "knows" someone is doing something wrong. His experience and knowledge had provided his brain with enough information to "put the pieces together" but, becasue he cannot PROVE the process by which he arrived at his conclusions, then they are considered invalid and he cannot act upon them much less bring them up in a court of law. We have used "Reason" to completely and utterly dismiss what "Enlightenment" tells us is true. Evolution could be seen as one of the victims of this... at least in your case. You do not seem to want to believe in evolution (i.e.. -- determining the result you WANT to be true first and then ordering or accepting and not accepting evidence or arguments based on whether or not it helps you "support" your case -- isn't that how science works under fascist, totalitarian and religiously fanatical regiemes?) and so you nit-pick the "provability" argument as a justification to ignore something which is eminently logical and sensible. You are hiding your dogmatic faith and beliefs behind a smoke screen of "Reason" and, as a result, it doesn't matter how much "evidence" is presented to you to "build a case", you dismiss ALL of it because it does not follow your mind's narrow ability to accept (or not accept) knowledge outside your limited belief system. However, whether you accept something or not, whether or not it can be "explained" and "proved" to YOUR satisfaction does not change whether it is true or not. That is another of the flaws of man's ego... we seem to think that is we do not know something, it does not exist or isn't real. Take the Schroediger's Cat idea as an illustration of quantum physics. The idea is that if a cat is in a box from which we cannot get any evidence or knowledge of whether it is alive or dead then it is in a state of being neither until we open the box and learn which state it is in. This is pure b**ls**t. The cat is alive or dead because it is alive or dead, not because we (or man) happen to "know" whether it is alive or dead. Just because we do not happen to know which state it is in does not mean that it isn't in that state. Likewise, evolution is true or not true because it is true or not true, not because it has been proven or not proven to the satisfaction of any person (or to all people). If man wants something proven to HIS satisfaction, it is MAN'S burden to find the evidence and proof that is out there, not the universe's burden to provide us with that evidence or proof. If do not have it, or can't find it or see it, that is OUR problem and failing, not the universe's. P.S. -- Oh, and Annael, a fool who hides his follishness behind "Reason" and "rationalized thinking" is still a fool... no matter how much he tries to make his foolishness sound intelligent and reasoned. That, btw, is not, of course, aimed at anyone in particular, it is just an observation I point out to you.

The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and Tolkien - The One Ring

The stages of evolution

Who is online