Now I'm going to have to explain it to you. We have advanced so much in the past 100 years because of this thing I like to call "The Industrial Revolution". And we advanced quickly in the past 5-10,000 years because of this thing I like to call "farming".
Many thousands of years ago, humans were hunters and gatherers. This as an easy life. They went around picking fruits, nuts, and berries, and hunting game. This was and always will be the most efficient way of obtaining food. They only had to work for two days a week, using our standards of a day's work. Then the hunters and gatherers, because of population expansion, started encroaching on each others' territory. They were running out of land. So they started slash and burn farming, which more intensively used the land. This was harder work than hunting and gathering. Then this became unviable with further population growth, because the land had to lie fallow for 20-30 years. So people started settling down and practicing substistence plough agriculture. This was even more work than slash and burn, but got more food out of the same land. Later, farms were taken over by aristocrats, and farmers found themselves working even harder to make money to buy food that they could easily grow themselves in times past. So they moved to the cities to find non existent work. Eventually factories were started, with assembly lines and specialized jobs. This, along with mechanization, led to the industrial revolution.
What does "confirmation" refer to? The fact of the matter is that feelings can't be trusted. I agreed with Zaketh because he said it before I had the chance. Am I to ignore him when he states an obvious fact, I think not.
Originally posted by: zod
Granted, I don't believe that any of those things exist, but I don't go spouting off and bashing those who do simply because I have a closed mind
I never once bashed God. I could care less if he/she/it existed. Doesn't concern me in the slightest.
You guys were the ones who had the problem with the scientific Theory of Evolution.
Because there's only theory and bias "evidence" toward it. There is no proof. It's not scientific per the definition of something being scientific: observable, measureable, and repeatable.
Anyone who starts sh|t immediately loses respect in my eyes (like that actually matters to anyone). I won't be the one starting things. I learn for myself, and comment on my opinion when asked.
nik
I think I know what you are referring to.
Punctuated Equilibrium.
Stasis for a long time, then quick change/speciation.
An interesting idea (the late Stephen Jay Gould was its biggest proponent), but this is rapid change in GEOLOGIC time. That means, say, 10,000 years. For the earth, thats quick change. It isnt really a new species just pops out, but it happens more rapidly than those who say everything evolves gradually over millions of years at a steady pace.
ffm -
Ah. Let's clarify what scientists mean by Theory. It isn't what you and I mean in every day English.
"A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. "
From The Scientific Method (inc. Theories, etc)
Read that quick paragraph to understand that saying Evolution is a Theory is confirming it.
I was actualy making a statement about everybody. People on the whole tend to be very stubborn when it comes to philosophies on existance.
Have you studied the minor differences that exist between the species that you mentioned? If you did than you should know full well that if scientists dug up Andre's bones in the future they would create a new species just for him. The fact of the matter is that the differences seen in what constitutes as different species are also seen in the human population as it exists today.
I guess I shouldn't use theory, then, because no beginning of time hypothesis has yet to be proven.
Hrmf. No response to the Andre the Giant pic. I liked that one.
Study this representation of the specimen - Andre!
Notice how Andre cannot fit into the Homo neandertalensis species.
Unlike them, he does not possess a protruding jaw, receding forehead, and weak chin. The mid-facial area of Neanderthals protruded much more than the same area in modern humans and may have been an adaptation to cold. Indeed, Neanderthals lived mostly in cold climates.
I think Andre lived in LA.
Trying to keep it light,
-zod
Study this representation of the specimen - Andre!
Notice how Andre cannot fit into the Homo neandertalensis species.
Unlike them, he does not possess a protruding jaw, receding forehead, and weak chin. The mid-facial area of Neanderthals protruded much more than the same area in modern humans and may have been an adaptation to cold. Indeed, Neanderthals lived mostly in cold climates.
I think Andre lived in LA.
Trying to keep it light,
-zod
Andre's facial features and bone structure fit in quite perfectly into modern human parameters. He possesses every feature that make us a coherent species.
We're discussing the Theory of Evolution, which by its very nature as a Theory (like Gravity) means it has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.
Ask a physicist about beginning of time hypotheses (big band and stuff).
We're discussing the Theory of Evolution, which by its very nature as a Theory (like Gravity) means it has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.
Yes, but you seem to have missed the point that he's a giant! Incidently I saw him wrestle (if you could call it that) at the Winnipeg arena once, the match lasted 15 seconds.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter