Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2005-12-14 22:43:10
bs6749
Member
+3|6999

dshak wrote:

hey I know.... please, one more time mention about the double posting thing... which I had nothing to do with. I find generally when people are mad, have their feelings hurt, or just plain don't like what someone else has to say, they tend to do things like that.
I was obviously being sarcastic, was not mad at all, and upset you enough to make you post this. I am sorry. Here are some tissues.

dshak wrote:

Oh, and how exactly do you explain the exceptional development of sensory perception when deprived of sight??? since you are so convinced most credible scientist would agree with you, an argument you support with no evidence by the way. evolution is, at its fundamental base, physical adaptation... so then how would you explain it? please, I'm all ears, educate me oh great mind.
Hmm, tough one. Let's see. I am assuming that you are ever so slightly familiar with genetics, even though you don't seem to grasp te ideas presented by multiple persons, including myself, so I will help you through this. EVERY LIVING THING has a little piece of information called DNA (Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid) which determines nearly everything about it from which organs it has, to color/amount of hair, color of skin, cell walls, presence of chloroplasts, et cetera. The presence or determination of whether these things are present or not are determined by chromosomes which carry genes. Each gene is in turn specific for a traits such as hair color, eye color, skin color, metabolism, and many other things (not just physical properties of an organism). To say that "evolution at its fundamental base is physical adaption" is not correct. Evolution is the changes that occur in a SPECIE'S <<<<NOT AN INDIVIDUAL'S (how many times must we tell him before he finally understands?) genetic makeup or DNA, which enables that species to be more FIT, and adapt better to its "niche". I would like you to interpret your meaning of SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST because I feel that it is off a notch or ten. Please tell me how your blind man (either blind from birth or lost sight later, doesn't really matter) experienced a change in his DNA that would enable him to "hear better".than unblind people. Think of that in reverse. A deaf person has better vision than the rest of us? (asuming that everyone else reading this is not deaf). How can you believe such a stupid thing? Obviously the blind man relies on his hearing for survival more than the rest of "us", but that is just common sense. If I practice basketball everyday I am going to improve; most likely won't be a superstar by my point is that the only reason my abilities or your blind man's hearing improves is because of adaption, NOT EVOLUTION. You have been proven incorrect once again.

dshak wrote:

BS are very appropriate begining letters for your name. see, look, I can be a know it all asshole to! what fun
Funny I was thinking about asking you what your name stood for. I was thinking DipShit something, but I realized that posting this would be reverting to a childlike state. I guess this just goes to show everyone who is more mature here.

dshak wrote:

also, JACKASS - evidence suggests that the appendix, a completely useless organ, was most likely used to help digest raw meat in prehistoric and early modern humans. interestingly enough there are primitive tribes in South America and Africa which have enlarged appendix and increased blood flow, indicating an intermediate step in the ATROPHY of the organ. conclusive, not a chance, but no less conclusive than the meteor in antarctica.
I am not sure what your point is here but it seemes to me like you were saying earlier that the appendix of an INDIVIDUAL EVOLVES <<<< WRONG WRONG WRONG. Your case suggests the evolution of the appendix in a group of people, which seeing how their diets probably consist of much raw meats, helps them in some way shape or form (guys I think he is starting to get the general idea.)

dshak wrote:

Nobody, including me, ever said that evolutionary characteristics are passed through a single generation... no really, read back through every post, never said it... however arguing that the process doesn't occur simply because genetic replication doesn't occur in a single generation is assanine and ignorant.
Is this directed at me? I am not sure what you are trying to say here. What are you saying here "genetic replication doesn't occur in a single generation?" Are you saying that I for instance don't replicate genetic information in a single generation? If so you are again wrong. If I didn't I would only be a single celled organism with a single set of DNA (remember this is genetic information). Thus genetic replication MUST HAVE OCCURED in order for me to become the billions-trillions of celled creature that I am today. Each cell having its own copy of my genetic information.

dshak wrote:

by the way, you're a prick. unlike you, in all of my postings, sarcastic as they were, I never felt small enough to need to attack someone else personally. You come back with "you're wrong and I'm right." yeah, thats a good argument, lots of supporting evidence. WELL DONE.
I said that I am sorry, I offered you a box of tissues, what else can I do? Does somebody need a hug? Guys lets all give dshak a hug so that he feels better. The reason that I "attacked" your appendix example was for the following reason.



















What I didn't give a reason? Go ahead and look at your post. You said roughly "and take the appendix for example" without further providing anyone ANY INFORMATION. So criticize me, call me names, do whatever it takes for you to feel good about yourself and to convince yourself that you are right.
2005-12-15 00:10:21
Tarasque
Member
+0|6973|Norway
Lets focus on our main feature: The brain.

We know how to throw stones, shoot rifles and detonate thermo nuclear warheads. We dont know how to avoid using them yet. Dont think we need more conflicts to generate more gray matter, just challenges. And what a more fitting challenge then peace baby.

So instead of writing this "ijustreaddarvinandmeinkamphpieceofshit" use tze brain!

Guess this topic is null and void

sorry guy's, i win :p



*EXTRA, EXTRA ... this just came in ... bf2 gamers all around the world unite and discovers cold fusion*
2005-12-15 06:35:10
CreepingDeath
Member
+1|6999
population control
2005-12-15 07:04:34
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7096|Cologne, Germany

kilroy0097 wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

surprisingly, you actually made a real point.
it's true. warfare, as you define it, is limited to humans. but conflict is not. conflict is universal. war is just the human form of conflict - its underlying causes and its end result are the same.

no matter what you want to call it, war or conflict, the same truth remains. would you be happy if i called it fighting? well, when we humans fight, we go to war. when lions fight, they bite each other. the difference is so trivial that i don't know why you would bother pointing it out.
Warfare is not the only form of conflict between humans. War does not have to be end result in any conflict between humans. The debate we are having right now is a form of conflict. Conflict is inherent within human nature. But due to our ability of higher thinking and the ability to make choices that do not obey primal natural instincts, we can choose to support or quell conflicts without the use of violent force and hence war is not necessarily the result of conflict.

We as a species do need to evolve and conflict, although a part of human nature, is hardly the most important reason that we evolve. I believe that technology and the uses of such has contributed more to evolution of the human species than war. However let me also point out that some of our greatest technological advances have come from wars. This however does not mean that war is needed for technological advances. It was simply a motivator to inspire a surge of invent because ultimately survival and the want to live will inspire a great many things. We have proven that we are able to push technology forward with motivation. This motivation does not have to be war. Often in today's society a cash prize or a rather public patent or publishing will gain a scientific break through.

Currently we have little to fear of anything on this planet with exception of some distant climate shift or world destroying asteroid. What we should be fearing at this very moment is infectious disease and viruses. Today we wage a "war" against an enemy smaller than the human eye can see. The war is not waged with guns and bombs, not planes nor tanks. The war is waged by scientists in white lab coats in sterile environments against bacteria, disease and viruses.

If you want to point out a war that will force humankind to better itself and evolve then the above war is the one you should be looking at.
I am with kilroy here. and I'd like to see krappy's response. As humans, we have evolved enough to consciously decide wether to wage war on others or not. That separates us from the animals. If every conflict ended in war, until one of the parties is extinct, there would be no walking human being left on this planet by now.

and btw, the topic of this thread is just plain sick. I don't know one single war veteran who didn't say that a war is the most horrific thing they ever went through.

there is nothing good about war.
2005-12-15 11:21:30
bs6749
Member
+3|6999

B.Schuss wrote:

I am with kilroy here. and I'd like to see krappy's response. As humans, we have evolved enough to consciously decide wether to wage war on others or not. That separates us from the animals. If every conflict ended in war, until one of the parties is extinct, there would be no walking human being left on this planet by now.

and btw, the topic of this thread is just plain sick. I don't know one single war veteran who didn't say that a war is the most horrific thing they ever went through.

there is nothing good about war.
I too agree that war is not the ONLY conflict between humans. I think that you need to look at war from a different points of view before you can say that there is NOTHING good about war. Take for instance WWII when U.S. troops discovered the concentration camps. It was a good thing that the prisoners were rescued from them before being killed, but the only reason that the U.S. troops were there to rescue them was because they were fighting a war. Also I have learned in my economics class that war is good for the economy. As mentioned before by several others, war provides us with newer technology that we may benefit from. The ability to mass produce penicillin and other antibiotics for example. People that hunt can appreciate their guns due to development that was brought on by war. Many more examples and products that we use frequently exist but I think you get the idea.

I do agree with you that war is not good for the people involved, both fighting and non-fighting. The people that benefit from war are generally the victors and the people that are able to use the technology and new ideas that were created after wars. So if you look at the situation from many angles you can get a better perspective of what I am trying to say.
2005-12-15 14:32:19
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7075
i'm too lazy to quote directly, so you'll just have to refer back to the posts i'm responding to.

in response to B. Schuss and Kilroy0097: yes, i agree that war is not the only form of conflict that humans engage in. but it is the only form of conflict which directly impacts and indirectly enhances our ability to self defense. remember that the premise of this thread is that continual war will lead us to be able to better defend ourselves against unknown threats in the future. we may be able to reason or bagain against our enemy, or maybe not. i am not saying war is the ONLY viable way for us to advance. we should persue all possibilities simultaneously to maximise our advancement. this, of course, includes war.
2005-12-16 01:18:18
Tarasque
Member
+0|6973|Norway
What your stating is that practice makes perfect, i dont know if you've ever heard about that phrase before?

Anyways stop talking about evolution theory like its mathematics. Nature aint a trivial 1+1=2 scenario, its more like x/0=? headake. Your just gonna spin this around untill somone has anurism.

War is great ... somone give crapphappy a lollypop!
2005-12-16 01:31:08
AFlyingNun
Member
+0|6975
Seriously, even if there were aliens, who's to say they WOULD be smarter or stronger?

You're theory sounds incredibly paranoid, not to mention like a pathetic excuse for war. No personal offense to you, just saying it doesn't seem fully logical. Plenty of people train without whiping out millions of lives.
2005-12-16 11:53:05
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7075
if my theory is illogical, then point out the errors in my logic. it might be paranoid, but nobody has proven me wrong yet.

and wars don't need my 'pathetic excuse' to happen. they happen anyway. what i'd like to see is a peacenik hippie who protests war out of ignorance actually make an impact and stop a war from occurring.
2005-12-16 12:36:35
mat.a369
Member
+0|6990

Krappyappy wrote:

if my theory is illogical, then point out the errors in my logic. it might be paranoid, but nobody has proven me wrong yet.
i can't see how you can call the phrase "war is good" logical as it's fairly clear to me that the disadvantages of war far outweigh your supposed advantages.

Do you really think the suffering and destruction war brings can be justified on the, what i believe to be fairly far fetched idea, that someday we will have to fight off an alien race? Or that it can be seen as good because it "benefits the economy" or that it has brought about certain advances in technology?

Besides who's to say that the development of more powerful weapons is a good thing anyway? personally i feel we are more at risk of wiping oursleves out with our own weapons than we are of ever being invaded by some alien race intent on our destruction.
2005-12-16 16:13:44
bs6749
Member
+3|6999

mat.a369 wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

if my theory is illogical, then point out the errors in my logic. it might be paranoid, but nobody has proven me wrong yet.
i can't see how you can call the phrase "war is good" logical as it's fairly clear to me that the disadvantages of war far outweigh your supposed advantages.
I think he was talking about people as a species evolving due to war and needing to continue to fight in order to maintain this "trait". And it is more "logically good" than bad, mainly for those not involved in it. Please read the post next time before contributing your two cents.

Last edited by bs6749 (2005-12-16 17:40:06)

2005-12-16 16:20:53
Tarasque
Member
+0|6973|Norway

bs6749 wrote:

mat.a369 wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

if my theory is illogical, then point out the errors in my logic. it might be paranoid, but nobody has proven me wrong yet.
i can't see how you can call the phrase "war is good" logical as it's fairly clear to me that the disadvantages of war far outweigh your supposed advantages.
I think he was talikng about people as a species evolving due to war and needing to continue to fight in order to maintain this "trait". And it is more "logically good" than bad, mainly for those not involved in it. Please read the post next time before contributing your two cents.
http://www2.burn.com/content/wave/wav-s … damnit.wav
2005-12-16 17:51:23
ZombieDog[p7]
Member
+0|6962
Your theory is baseless.  Why???

Most of the increased efficiency of our military is because of better technology.  While it is true that when involved in a war it is easier to procure people and money for research, it is in no way required.  We could see the same tech advances in peace time.  Also, at our current level of complexity, most new equipment takes much longer than a war to develop.

Wars are actually run by a small number of commanders.  Good commanders have good analytical/problem solving abilities.  These commanders have these abilities regardless of whether they have fought or not.  Good commanders are born rather than taught.  For instance, I bet Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar would all be extraordinary commanders if they lived now.  Training is helpful, but it isn't like our current commanders have a distinct advantage from the hundreds of years war we have had since they were around.

War changes.  Tactics that were good thirty years ago, may not work now.  WWI was totally different compared to WWII.  The first Gulf War is completely different from the current one.

I am not quite sure evolution was even brought up.  War is not an evolutionary factor.  Possibly at one time, it may have lead to more agile and stronger individuals, but obviously those traits aren't inherent in people.
2005-12-16 18:10:33
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7075
do not underestimate the lure of peace. if we knew for a fact that all wars would end forever tomorrow, what reason would we have to keep developing new defense technology? sure the means to make them in peacetime are there, but where is the MOTIVATION?

how good we are at war is the total sum of the technology we have, the tactics we developed, the cumulative knowledge that we remember. human beings have fallible memories, in order to make good use of something we have to constantly train our brains to think it, our bodies to act it. otherwise we could just write all the military knowledge we have in a big book, and randomly pick some guy off the street during wartime and have him read the book, then have him command the army. we know this wouldn't work, because there is no replacement for practice.
2005-12-16 23:05:15
bs6749
Member
+3|6999

Tarasque wrote:

bs6749 wrote:

mat.a369 wrote:


i can't see how you can call the phrase "war is good" logical as it's fairly clear to me that the disadvantages of war far outweigh your supposed advantages.
I think he was talikng about people as a species evolving due to war and needing to continue to fight in order to maintain this "trait". And it is more "logically good" than bad, mainly for those not involved in it. Please read the post next time before contributing your two cents.
http://www2.burn.com/content/wave/wav-s … damnit.wav
What the hell was that and who was it directed towards? I know that it was Cartman from Southpark but what was he saying?
2005-12-18 06:55:07
ozzi92
Member
+2|6960

Krappyappy wrote:

dshak wrote:

unfortunately, when captain evolution calls our number chances are it won't be because something is going to eat us, and chances are no weapons, vehicles, or special forces units will be able to prevent it either.
how can you possible know what 'captain evolution' has in store for us? statements like this are completely unsupported by evidence. unlike the rest of you, i don't presume to know what the biggest threat to humanity is. you're predicting the future. on what basis can you make these claims?

i advocate war because it lets us prepare for one more possible scenario. we can't prepare for everything, but we definitely can maximise the number of things we do prapare for.
Ur saying that it prepares us to possible scenario but let me ask u how is it doing that if were killing each other leaving no one to even get to ur possible scenario and spending so much money on war that our ppl die from no water or food. war is only right when someone or a country trys to destroy the world and all war does is stop them hopefully like ww2 or ww1
2005-12-18 08:01:24
Ryan_Mercury
"It's Recharging!"
+19|7075
I'm only going to say I understand what Krappyappy is saying. Krappy, its quite obvious alot of these people simply can't get it, its not worth continuing really.

I won't even bother explaining either, aint worth the effort. But basically, if we didnt fight wars, someone would  have the power to take over and under that rule, evolution in terms of intelligence, would see a sharp decline.. while our genetics would continue, our intelligence gifted to us by evelution would be suppressed, as, right now for instance, freedom and intelligence is growing.

Thats all I have to say about that.
2005-12-18 14:08:39
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7075
well i'm not here to try and change people's minds. debate is good for the brain [though most posts on these forums don't necessarily qualify as debate]

my arguments have weaknesses, there's no such thing as a perfect position. only a couple of people have hit on it, however. most have gone down rhetorical dead-ends.
2005-12-19 05:11:29
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7096|Cologne, Germany

well, I can see the concept behind your arguments, and I can kinda grasp its evolutionary basis ( evolving through struggle for survival ) but what bothers me is that you actually advocate war.

Now, imagine a sustained period of peace in the world. Would you demand that a war against a randomly picked enemy should be fought ( let's say, denmark ), so that we don't lose our strafe for technological perfection ?

Also, you seem to think ( and please correct me if I am wrong ) that we are preparing for the final battle against the aliens. what aliens ? My guess would be you watched "Independece Day" a bit too often...

I agree that in nature, evolvement often comes from the struggle to survive. But as it stands we are the peak of evolution so far. And if we are ever to evolve further, I dearly hope it has nothing to do with purposely killing other individuals of our species.

I believe you are mixing darwinism/evolution theory with technological evolvement, trying to justify war.

If we are to evolve any further ( and by evolving I mean as far as the shape of our body is concerend, the way our limbs work, the way our brain processes information, that is evolvement from a evolutionary standpoint ), it would have to be a threat presented to humanity in its entirety, and it would be nothing we could prepare for right now, simply because it would be something we have never seen before.

One could argue that this threat could be an alien invasion, but how are you going to prepare for that by fighting some third-world-country, i.e. your own kind ?

Let me chose the following example to illustrate what I mean:

I think we all agree that lions are at the top of the food chain in their territory. They have no natural enemies to fear. They only fear another species. that is us. we are so much more advanced, that the lions can never hope to win a war against us. Ever. And even although lions have been fighting each other for survival and territory for longer than I can imagine, they will never be prepared enough to win a battle against us.

ok. now we are the lions. already on top of the food chain. what makes you think fighting each other will prepare us any better than the lions for a possible fight against another species ?

And now please go and tell little Ali from Baghdad that you have invaded his country not because of oil, or power, or strategic interest, but rather as part of a larger plan to make sure all mankind is prepared for an alien invasion. good luck with that....

no offense intended, I just needed a funny line to finish up this rather complicated post...
2005-12-19 17:08:42
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7075
again, i stress that i never said anything in my posts about aliens. it was all the people that responded to this thread which took it in that direction. i said we should be prepared against 'unknown threats,' whatever form they end up taking.

to respond to the lion example - when lions fight each other, they definitely DO select out the strongest ones, which go on to breed. they may not improve to the point of being able to stand up to humans, but it's undeniable that they've improved in some way. usually, sexual selection drives the competition within a species, while predation drives the competition between species. competition for resources is both intra and inter species. the combination of the three drives the fastest rate of evolution.

our problem is, we can't find any other species to compete with. so all we have left to fight are ourselves. as with the lions, it may not be a huge improvement, but it's better than nothing.

Last edited by Krappyappy (2005-12-19 17:11:19)

2005-12-20 05:11:27
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7096|Cologne, Germany

well, as it looks right now, the "unknown threat" could well be not a group of people / other species but some form of virus or dangerous bacteria. In that case, fighting each other to improve won't help much.

Do you really believe fighting each other will help in preparing for an unknown threat ?

With that kind of logic, I could justify any kind of action, most of which would most likely qualify as crimes.
Actually, it is kind of the same logic the Nazis used to justify the killing of disabled people and everyone else who didn't fit their arian agenda..

Not saying that you are a Nazi, of course. this is just a discussion, is it.?
2005-12-20 05:47:10
dangerman
Member
+0|6958
I see everyone talking about evolution, but the fact is:

MAN ISN'T GOING TO EVOLVE FURTHER

We are not animals - there is not a real struggle for existence in many countries, and we can control, in a sense, our environment, and there aren't any real 'selection pressures'.

This means that many people live -- even those people with diseases, and unfit people, and what one may consider an unfavourable genotype, hence evolution via natural selection cannot occur.
2005-12-20 05:53:30
TC><Injecter
Member
+4|7083|Berlin, Germany
Hm... Is a quite good theorie! BUT maybe we are so damn evolved that there wont be something that can eat us (except aliens or something...). And then we will rot ourselves out then ... So this theory has a bad side and a good side

Remebder every medal has 2 sides
2005-12-20 05:56:37
TC><Injecter
Member
+4|7083|Berlin, Germany

dangerman wrote:

We are not animals
What do you think we are?! We are mammals! Our kids come seeing and not in eggs and our "cows" have teats (where do you think the word titts comes from!). SO: we are mammals we just have a thumb... If we're gonna evolve is not possible to say.

AND NO: we are not - as Agent Smith in Matrix said - a virus...
2005-12-20 06:27:00
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7096|Cologne, Germany

well, we are mammals, although very evolved ones. and we are the only mammals to be consciously able to question were we come from and what might happen to us in the future.

dangerman wrote:

I see everyone talking about evolution, but the fact is:

MAN ISN'T GOING TO EVOLVE FURTHER

We are not animals - there is not a real struggle for existence in many countries, and we can control, in a sense, our environment, and there aren't any real 'selection pressures'.

This means that many people live -- even those people with diseases, and unfit people, and what one may consider an unfavourable genotype, hence evolution via natural selection cannot occur.
evolution is a very slow process. and it never stops or comes to an end. We are constantly evolving, although in very subtle steps. more than anything else, evolution is adaption to external influences. and it is not a conscious process, i.e. one single individual can not decide to evolve. It simply happens. and when it does, it affects the whole species in a certain area. this might be as small as an island, or a continent, or as big as a planet.

Accordingly, consciously deciding to wage war against other humans will not help us evolve at all, at least not in an evolutionary sense. It may help our technological advancement, but that has nothing to do with basic evolution ( which as far as I know only speaks about physical features like body structure or brain size and functions ).

It took a couple of thousand years for our bodies to evolve to their current state. I doubt any of us will see the next big step in the evolution of mankind ( as far as our body and brain structure is concerned ).

If we do not solve the energy resource issues of this planet, it is indeed rather more likely that earth is long dead before the humans evolve any further....

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard