This is interesting, I had never heard an estimate that high:
A team led by University of Wisconsin-Madison anthropologist John Hawks estimates that positive selection just in the past 5,000 years alone -dating back to the Stone Age - has occurred at a rate roughly 100 times higher than any other period of human evolution. Many of the new genetic adjustments are occurring around changes in the human diet brought on by the advent of agriculture, and resistance to epidemic diseases that became major killers after the growth of human civilizations.
I would think colonization of other planets (or in the article's own terms, "invasion of outer space") would be a more likely and more comparable next step.
Hm, I know more about computer science than about physics. Sure, after reading countless science fiction stories, it is difficult to imagine that there won't be interstellar travel, teleportation and time travel one day, but aren't there physical limitations? OK teleportation seems doable (has been done I think), but what about the speed of light? Most sf stories seem to settle for some kind of handy worm holes, but what if we don't find them?
Not saying it is impossible, but the path to AI seems much clearer than the path to interstellar travel at this point, in my opinion. Like say in 100 years, do you think we'll be traveling to distant stars already? (Then again, with super intelligent AI, maybe we, or "they", will figure something out).
He doesn't have a wiki in my native tongue, so I had to chuck google translate at http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Scheele . The results seem to indicate he is a nobody, but I could be wrong. Also, could anyone provide a better translation of the book title "I am Jesus-fan: but how you become one?"? Without context from sources I've seen before, it's not clear that it's worth my time to read the page you linked to.
I ran into this same problem while trying to read a broad survey of Institutionalist economics papers--the amount of time I can spend reading is limited, and sometimes there's no way to tell if a heterodox work is worth the trouble. Sadly, my default is "no."
Just look at all the things Darwin "didn't want to know", and the progress which science made since Darwin.
IMO, Darwin is simply not to consider a good scientist, and in Darwins book there are some disgusting racist parts, and discriminating parts against the intelligence of women.
Yeah, obviously if science has made progress since Darwin then that shows that the modern version of Darwin's theory (resulting from, y'know, all that scientific progress) must be wrong.
The reason why scientists accept evolution is not because Darwin was a good scientist or a nice person (although, for the record, general consensus is that he was) but because the evidence for is vastly better than the evidence against. Even if it turned out that Darwin was crazy as a loon, that his belief in evolution came from voices in his head, and that he liked to eat babies for breakfast, it wouldn't change that.
the evidence for is vastly better than the evidence against
This is simply not true.
There are many scientific books against the evolution theory. I know that I'm not saying something popular when I claim that to me the evolution theory is simply silly. But I don't care to be popular -- instead I care to accept the most reasonable opinion.
Why do you insist on the word "theory"? It makes you sound like you dismiss the evolution theory because it is "just a theory". This word says nothing about the validity of the claim.
Now, if the evolution theory is silly, what is not? Intelligent desing? If you think that, I'm out, except for a url:
I insist in the correct term theory, because it is often presented as a fact (especially in school books here in Europe).
I said 'silly' because basically it says: "less intelligent beings evolved into more intelligent beings". Now, this is simply impossible. If you want something less intelligent become more intelligent, you need someone from outside to bring the new intelligence.
It's very interesting that Darwin himself admitted that he faked some of his experiments, just to "make the whole theory work".
So, it's basically very simple: nobody can exclude a perfect Intelligence on the beginning of everything. Call it God, call it how you like, but denying it is not very intelligent...
About "theory", if you go down that path, we can say the same about Newton's. Few high school teachers in their right mind will mention that this theory is actually false, displaced by relativity, but nevertheless a good approximation at relatively low levels of energy. They simply present the Newton's three laws of motion as a fact. Unlike Newton's, evolution theory is currently the generally accepted theory. To present it as a fact is even more legitimate. Now, what schools do lack is a general explanation about theories, the certainties (or lack thereof) we have about them, and the changes in the generally accepted set of theories, past and present.
About "silly", I never understood evolution as a path from less intelligent to more intelligent. I always thought it was the survival of the fittest — quite a different concept. For example, I've heard about a animal which at some point in its life just eats its brain, because it's isn't needed anymore (the animal somewhat become a plant). Now, talking about intelligence as such isn't really possible, since "intelligence" is hardly a well defined term, let alone a measurable quantity. Complexity, on the other hand is more measurable. Why do life became more and more complex over time, I do not know. however, I do know that some complexities gave an edge to the concerned species. One of them is the eye.
About Darwin's fake experiments, it already has been said: it doesn't matter. His theory was amended, we have more data, and more peer reviews. Without a relatively high level of plausibility, the evolution theory would have been rejected by now. Even if it means proving the Church wrong. Now, I have not read how the book you linked addresses this catch.
About the perfect intelligence on the beginning of everything, it doesn't matter. It is just beyond science. That this begining was the Big Bang just fits the current observations best. Pretending that life on Earth allways was as complex as it is now is too convoluted right now to be considered a valid theory.
As a final note, I must add that I am not as specialist. So my only choice is to take the generaly accepted set of theories for granted. I have no right to contradict them without a great deal of knowlege in their respective domains. If the author you cited is right, that is sadly not my job to listen to him. That is the job of specialists.
- I sincerely listened to the evolution theory people
- I sincerely listened to the creationist people (but not in the US! In US, they all seem fundamentalists! We here in Europe have a much better religion/science culture; sorry, US).
I'm never interested in defending somebody or something, I'm always interested in the truth (read: ready to change my opinion, and I already did this many many times).
No, Darwin and followers: you don't convince me...
Yes, (european) 'creationists' (they aren't called so stupidly here, BTW): yes, you really convinced me!
P.S. Better have no science at all than bad (read: weak) science.
The whole problem here is that "Evolution" means two things. It's well-verified scientific fact that natural selection drives change within a species. What creationists dispute is that natural selection drives organisms to change from one species to another. There is very little evidence for this. If natural selection (and therefore stepwise refinement) is responsible for the creation of new species, the whole idea of a "missing link" would not be novel.
It seems google translate was right on with the translation. Doesn't make much sense in dutch either...
He seems a fairly dedicated god-botherer / evangelist, with a few TV programmes, so maybe a semi-celebrity (?)
(disclaimer: I was 11 when I left the Netherlands for New Zealand)
As for the parent comment, the evolution=degeneration theory does not pass my common sense filter: are we that much more degenerate than our 5-million-years-ago ancestors? Seems more likely to be a reactive criticism against Darwin, but (not having read the book, only the intro) provided it makes VALID points that need to be considered, it will (hopefully) aid our understanding as to how we got here, and where we may end up going...
You can't be serious: all of his theory is really scientific, at least at the same level as Darwin (but I would say much higher, because he has gone through many discussion/corrections by other scientists).
This book is really hilarious, because it states the complete opposite of Darwin, and is even more convincing than Darwin.
22 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 64.4 ms ] threadA team led by University of Wisconsin-Madison anthropologist John Hawks estimates that positive selection just in the past 5,000 years alone -dating back to the Stone Age - has occurred at a rate roughly 100 times higher than any other period of human evolution. Many of the new genetic adjustments are occurring around changes in the human diet brought on by the advent of agriculture, and resistance to epidemic diseases that became major killers after the growth of human civilizations.
Not saying it is impossible, but the path to AI seems much clearer than the path to interstellar travel at this point, in my opinion. Like say in 100 years, do you think we'll be traveling to distant stars already? (Then again, with super intelligent AI, maybe we, or "they", will figure something out).
http://www.evolution-is-degeneration.com/index.asp?PaginaID=...
I ran into this same problem while trying to read a broad survey of Institutionalist economics papers--the amount of time I can spend reading is limited, and sometimes there's no way to tell if a heterodox work is worth the trouble. Sadly, my default is "no."
Just look at all the things Darwin "didn't want to know", and the progress which science made since Darwin.
IMO, Darwin is simply not to consider a good scientist, and in Darwins book there are some disgusting racist parts, and discriminating parts against the intelligence of women.
The reason why scientists accept evolution is not because Darwin was a good scientist or a nice person (although, for the record, general consensus is that he was) but because the evidence for is vastly better than the evidence against. Even if it turned out that Darwin was crazy as a loon, that his belief in evolution came from voices in his head, and that he liked to eat babies for breakfast, it wouldn't change that.
This is simply not true.
There are many scientific books against the evolution theory. I know that I'm not saying something popular when I claim that to me the evolution theory is simply silly. But I don't care to be popular -- instead I care to accept the most reasonable opinion.
Now, if the evolution theory is silly, what is not? Intelligent desing? If you think that, I'm out, except for a url:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pscindx.htm
The section labeled "Anti-Evolutionism" may be of particular interest, here.
I said 'silly' because basically it says: "less intelligent beings evolved into more intelligent beings". Now, this is simply impossible. If you want something less intelligent become more intelligent, you need someone from outside to bring the new intelligence.
It's very interesting that Darwin himself admitted that he faked some of his experiments, just to "make the whole theory work".
So, it's basically very simple: nobody can exclude a perfect Intelligence on the beginning of everything. Call it God, call it how you like, but denying it is not very intelligent...
I'm serious--the theory that we are talking about has absolutely nothing to say about your "first Intelligence".
I've read the original Darwin and there is many a mention of the "creator's breath" (that put everything into action) and things of this nature.
About "silly", I never understood evolution as a path from less intelligent to more intelligent. I always thought it was the survival of the fittest — quite a different concept. For example, I've heard about a animal which at some point in its life just eats its brain, because it's isn't needed anymore (the animal somewhat become a plant). Now, talking about intelligence as such isn't really possible, since "intelligence" is hardly a well defined term, let alone a measurable quantity. Complexity, on the other hand is more measurable. Why do life became more and more complex over time, I do not know. however, I do know that some complexities gave an edge to the concerned species. One of them is the eye.
About Darwin's fake experiments, it already has been said: it doesn't matter. His theory was amended, we have more data, and more peer reviews. Without a relatively high level of plausibility, the evolution theory would have been rejected by now. Even if it means proving the Church wrong. Now, I have not read how the book you linked addresses this catch.
About the perfect intelligence on the beginning of everything, it doesn't matter. It is just beyond science. That this begining was the Big Bang just fits the current observations best. Pretending that life on Earth allways was as complex as it is now is too convoluted right now to be considered a valid theory.
As a final note, I must add that I am not as specialist. So my only choice is to take the generaly accepted set of theories for granted. I have no right to contradict them without a great deal of knowlege in their respective domains. If the author you cited is right, that is sadly not my job to listen to him. That is the job of specialists.
Simply let me state this:
- I sincerely listened to the evolution theory people
- I sincerely listened to the creationist people (but not in the US! In US, they all seem fundamentalists! We here in Europe have a much better religion/science culture; sorry, US).
I'm never interested in defending somebody or something, I'm always interested in the truth (read: ready to change my opinion, and I already did this many many times).
No, Darwin and followers: you don't convince me...
Yes, (european) 'creationists' (they aren't called so stupidly here, BTW): yes, you really convinced me!
P.S. Better have no science at all than bad (read: weak) science.
He seems a fairly dedicated god-botherer / evangelist, with a few TV programmes, so maybe a semi-celebrity (?)
(disclaimer: I was 11 when I left the Netherlands for New Zealand)
As for the parent comment, the evolution=degeneration theory does not pass my common sense filter: are we that much more degenerate than our 5-million-years-ago ancestors? Seems more likely to be a reactive criticism against Darwin, but (not having read the book, only the intro) provided it makes VALID points that need to be considered, it will (hopefully) aid our understanding as to how we got here, and where we may end up going...
This book is really hilarious, because it states the complete opposite of Darwin, and is even more convincing than Darwin.
For the fun of it, go read it!!