.politics.

[cltrn81]

Rational thinker or not we cannot set the parameters of evolution given we are not the ones who control it.  Evolution is simply the genetic memory of DNA constantly repeating itself, now sometimes an anomaly occurs in this replication process and the anomaly either works out or it does not......the ones that work out is the process of evolution.....we have no control over this natural process.  That is my point. 

With that said we, as a global society, have created a different type of evolution through technology....but that is a whole nother story.

[darkarts981]

Rational thinker or not we cannot set the parameters of evolution given we are not the ones who control it.  Evolution is simply the genetic memory of DNA constantly repeating itself, now sometimes an anomaly occurs in this replication process and the anomaly either works out or it does not......the ones that work out is the process of evolution.....we have no control over this natural process.  That is my point. 

With that said we, as a global society, have created a different type of evolution through technology....but that is a whole nother story.

Thank you, this is pretty much the point I  was trying to get across!

[Coffee Vampire]

You are taking my statement the wrong way; I'm not saying I am "captain evolution" and I can harness my powers over the earth to do what I want. I mean that based on observations and studies, I am qualified just as much as any other educated person to judge as to what evolution can and can't do.

[cltrn81]

You are taking my statement the wrong way; I'm not saying I am "captain evolution" and I can harness my powers over the earth to do what I want. I mean that based on observations and studies, I am qualified just as much as any other educated person to judge as to what evolution can and can't do.

Sure we can speculate but we will never have the right information to be accurate.  You tout historical examples as your logic for judging evolution but the very definition of evolution involves going beyond the present and turning into something different.  I think there is a lot of randomness in regards to evolution and those types of variables can not be predicted very easily.....do you think the first fish to grow legs ever thought he would grow legs?  Granted fish do not have cognitive memory or any real thought process.  In hindsight it makes sense that fish grew legs, and wings for that matter, but at the time it could not be foreseen since there was no precedent set for anything to inhabit land.....only water based organisms.

[Coffee Vampire]

In "hindsight", evolution (macro evolution) does not make sense at all; in fact, the beginning of it cannot be explained. Sure it started from some sort of {Genisis Wave}. But what caused that? It seems like an extremely theory.

(okay jace, we are off topic now. You win )

[BlackJester]

Oh man!  This thread is POPPIN'!  I like this kind of intellectual/philosophical discussion.   

Should we break off another evolution thread, philosophy thread, etc?

5 pages in under a day.  Whew!

[cltrn81]

In "hindsight", evolution (macro evolution) does not make sense at all; in fact, the beginning of it cannot be explained. Sure it started from some sort of {Genisis Wave}. But what caused that? It seems like an extremely theory.

(okay jace, we are off topic now. You win )

They believe extremophiles were some of the first complex organisms.  Pretty much you need that "goldilocks" area that the energy is not to much and not to little.  Then you need any form of liquid because liquid slows down molecules enough that they can actually come together and create complex organisms and start "life".  You could not do this in a gaseous state since the molecules move to fast to actually come together and combine.

And yes I am the king of vearing off subject.....I guess this thread has just evolved into something else

[Gorzo]

I feel kinda bad for not participating in this thread.  It's been really interesting to read, and I love to see people talking/thinking intelligently on this kind of subject matter and not just saying "no you're wrong, my opinion is the right way to think."

Maybe when my migraine breaks my thoughts will let me think clear enough to contribute to intelligent conversation. Until then, I'll be lurking around the dumber threads

[Kuberr]

Oh man!  This thread is POPPIN'!  I like this kind of intellectual/philosophical discussion.   

Should we break off another evolution thread, philosophy thread, etc?

5 pages in under a day.  Whew!

All because of a darn iPad.

[darkarts981]

This is really amusing to read and think about, but unless I have something really intelligent to say, I won't be posting, instead I'll he off with Gorzo XD

[Coffee Vampire]

In "hindsight", evolution (macro evolution) does not make sense at all; in fact, the beginning of it cannot be explained. Sure it started from some sort of {Genisis Wave}. But what caused that? It seems like an extremely theory.

(okay jace, we are off topic now. You win )

They believe extremophiles were some of the first complex organisms.  Pretty much you need that "goldilocks" area that the energy is not to much and not to little.  Then you need any form of liquid because liquid slows down molecules enough that they can actually come together and create complex organisms and start "life".  You could not do this in a gaseous state since the molecules move to fast to actually come together and combine.

And yes I am the king of vearing off subject.....I guess this thread has just evolved into something else

Yeah but that's assuming the neccesary component's for the "goldilocks area" already existed. If you need space, energy, and liquid to make everything start, then you need to have gotten those ingrediants from some place. All things have a cause and effect, so what caused the necesary situation for evolution? Where did the materials come from?

The idea of evolution is like the idea of an earthquake shaking a kitchen. All of the right ingrediants in the cabinets fall out, fly into the oven, and come out as a cake. In fact, evolution is worse because it cannot even explain where the ingrediants came from.

And yes this thread has evolved, which is called micro evolution.

[Piotr]

Hitler ran in the mid to late 20's as a national socialist. He lost. He ran again still as a national socialist. And he won.

You may call it fascism if you want, but fascism IS dictatorship. National socialism was their way of calling a political party. Like republican or democrat for the united states.

My point is that to call Hitler a socialist is incorrect.

His Economic system was socialist, so I'm not sure what you mean. NSDAP was not just the label, they were totally left wing. Far right is libertarian in my vocabulary, nothing to do with Hitler.

[BlackJester]

Also Blackjester: if you are willing to admit that human nature exists as well as evolution, I must ask where it came from. At what point did human nature even exist, and what makes you think that something better will replace it?

I am very willing to admit that we can observe the behavior of the human animal can mark our observations down as "human nature".  I can admit that if something changes over time, we can call that evolution.  I don't know where the cans of Coke in the vending machine came from, but I am pretty sure that when I put my money in, one will come out and I can drink it and discuss the taste of Cherry Cola without describing the plant that produced it.

When I talk about the evolution of human behavior, it doesn't have to be in any context other than, "We used to to this, now we don't", "African-Americans used to not be allowed to vote in the US now they can."  I'd consider that social evolution, wouldn't you?

[Kuberr]

Hitler ran in the mid to late 20's as a national socialist. He lost. He ran again still as a national socialist. And he won.

You may call it fascism if you want, but fascism IS dictatorship. National socialism was their way of calling a political party. Like republican or democrat for the united states.

My point is that to call Hitler a socialist is incorrect.

His Economic system was socialist, so I'm not sure what you mean. NSDAP was not just the label, they were totally left wing. Far right is libertarian in my vocabulary, nothing to do with Hitler.

I have to disagree.

Libratarians are not left or right wing. They are moderate extremists. They believe in extreme order and extreme consequences. (I know many libertarians).

I believe the national socialist movement was very right wing. Almost to the tea party. (a few are running for city council in my area. National socialists that is.)

[cltrn81]

Hour drive ATM or I would refute some more