Alienation wrote:

Mr Darwin wrote:Hi Alienation,

You make an argument against evolution but not directly for creation. May I ask where you sit in this debate, or does your username give it away. Where to start...? Ok, intelligent civilisations would not exist if it were not for the ongoing process of evolution which all species go through in order to advance to higher levels of existence. Had these civilisations not evolved it is highly likely you wouldn't be composing this message in support of your alien bretheren.

Mankind is not only a physical being, but mankind is also a "spiritual being". This means there is an unidentified energy form in each person, and in humanity as a whole, that mankind cannot interact with (not yet), that functions as apart of the consciousness, with mankind, and no other species on earth. Psycholudics is the study of the mind and psyche, and there have been occasionally attempts of understanding more about the "extra sensory perception" of the human consciousness, with nothing conclusive. From time to time, and less frequently as it stand, these kinds of studies have been all but eliminated. If this relationships exists outside of the "body", then its difficult to imagine how evolution can effect it. Or, if the opposite is true, that this "extra sensory perception", that functions outside of the human body, or the soul, could also of influenced evolution over time. This is a simply way of saying, one form of energy is governed by a higher power for a period of time, that is god with the soul, until humanity is able to govern itself, in this new and independant capacity. Thus the introduction of aliens and the RAPTURE, is what this signifies for man.

Mr Darwin wrote:Mankind wasn't placed anywhere, mankind evolved with all the other vast array of lifeforms that allowed a further evolution right up to where we are now. I dont believe that for one minute mankind has reached it's full potential, physically, spiritually or technologically. I would hazard a guess that our future may progress to a kind of symbiotic existence, but I have never believed that we are a result of alien intervention, if that is where your belief lies.

Mankind is the only being in the planet with advanced computation abilities, as well as other abilities. Which evolutionists cannot define by "natural selection" or by anyother means. Its simply not scientific to dismiss logic in the absence of concrete evidence, and by saying that mankind wasn't "placed" in any capacity. That statement is too conclusive, to have any meaning, without conclusive evidence. Now, conclusive evidence does not seem like it will surface on the subject, so its not intelligent to make rash conclusions. Now when the aliens show up on the planet, thats another matter, and will most likely indicate proof that man is more than the sum of its parts, like a fast food meal!

Mr Darwin wrote:Darwinism is a theory, the theory of survival of the fittest, through inherent changes in same species, to run faster, grow larger, to fly, grow body armour and adapt to environment or climate, all these go towards Darwins theory in proving that evolution is the defining process which allows species to progress. As evolution is such a random process, had any of the processes been different who is to say humans would have evolved at all.

Your not being clear enough, in what you are trying to say, so let me. Mankind is an intelligent species, but intelligence is not involved in man's development, just the most base form of "survival of the fittest. A more intelligence statement would be: mankind is an intelligent species, so intelligence would be the primary method of "selection" for mankind, and not the most bast form of "survival of the fittest". I prefer to let the reader decide for themselves.

Mr Darwin wrote:I dont have to prove that all life is as a result of evolution, it is all around us, and it is backed up as scientific fact through fossil records and further scientific discoveries. I dont have to disprove your view as you have no evidence to prove it. let me direct you to my other postings on here, they can be found in mainly the evolution boards, please read them and come back with further correspondence.

Mr Darwin.

Evolution is not the only force that has been affecting mankind's development. On that note, I never said that evolution didn't play a role, in mankind's behavior, but I suggested this role, was and is a very limited one. Evolution has less significance than Creation in this earth, but in the new earth, the relationship could change, i'm not saying it will. In fact, I will mirror my original statements in saying: An Intelligent Species, will never let Evolution dictate its behavior!!!

Thanks for the response

Hi Alienation,

Your comments, however well composed are all based around a differing belief system than mine. Nothing wrong in that. however, it falls down when you say intelligence is not involved in man's development. By the very fact intelligence is a progressive trait through continued evolvement makes your statement a little misguided. The levels of intelligence which support the higher evolution of homo sapiens is well documented and supported with factual evidences. The ability to communicate using differing sounds was unique in any of the earliest hominids, to fashion clothing and tools for hunting was far above any other creatures, and certainly way more advanced than their earlier primate counterparts. These abilities were as a direct result of continued evolution which enhanced the traits exhibited by earlier hominids to allow adaptability, this included higher intelligence.

Evolution dictates survival. The earliest man cannot in any way possible compete with modern man intellectually. That statement alone tells you that through continued evolvement, man has evolved into a higher intellectual than it's earlier counterparts. I think I made my point perfectly clear, Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest via inherant changes in species is supported by scientific facts and is widely accepted as such.

The suggestion that we are as a result of a creator in some way belongs in a different belief system, I am not in a position to prove that isn't the case as there is no evidence to disprove it. It is all a matter of what you are prepared to believe in. If as you believe we may have found our way here through other means, again, until there is empirical proof to support this, I believe it is fantasy.

Mr Darwin.

Mr Darwin wrote:
Evolution dictates survival. The earliest man cannot in any way possible compete with modern man intellectually. That statement alone tells you that through continued evolvement, man has evolved into a higher intellectual than it's earlier counterparts. I think I made my point perfectly clear, Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest via inherant changes in species is supported by scientific facts and is widely accepted as such.

The PIttdown Man - (the president is simply being used as an illustration of adversity, in connection to the discovery of the skull)

Between June and September 1912 they together recovered more fragments of the skull and half of the lower jaw bone. Arthur Smith Woodward, keeper of the geological department at the British Museum. From the British Museum's reconstruction of the skull, Woodward proposed that Piltdown man represented an evolutionary missing link between ape and man, since the combination of a human-like cranium with an ape-like jaw tended to support the notion then prevailing in England that human evolution began with the brain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

If Evolution began for what we refer to as the "modern human or homosapien", in the human brain. Then at some point in history "survival of the fittest" took a back seat to "intelligence". And mankind began to become a willing participant in his own "evolutionary process". I am also suggesting that this "intelligence" was introduced by beings with a greater intelligence, and I am also suggesting that it is a miscalculation to rule this conclusion out. Simply put: "Evolution" can never become the sole authoritative progenitor of man. Its inherently incorrect when it attempts this disposition, and that is why it has never left the landing pad.

Mr Darwin wrote:The suggestion that we are as a result of a creator in some way belongs in a different belief system, I am not in a position to prove that isn't the case as there is no evidence to disprove it. It is all a matter of what you are prepared to believe in. If as you believe we may have found our way here through other means, again, until there is empirical proof to support this, I believe it is fantasy.

Mr Darwin.

Evolution is the result of natural selection by adversity. When "Intelligence", even the "Intelligence" of man, became a primary factor in traditional evolutionary selection, then at this point, man became a creator to his own evolution.

I have to disagree, as long as intelligence can redirect or affect evolution with man, by man or another force, then in this capacity. A "Creator" cannot be separated from "Evolution".

I hate to say it, but "evolution" needs some serious methodology overhauls made to it, especially since we are in the "information age" and intelligence has never before in our history directed us, like it is directing us now. And this is a divide between "survival of the fittest"- evolution. And "creator based intelligent design" - evolution.


Thanks Again for the Response.

Alienation wrote:

Mr Darwin wrote:
Evolution dictates survival. The earliest man cannot in any way possible compete with modern man intellectually. That statement alone tells you that through continued evolvement, man has evolved into a higher intellectual than it's earlier counterparts. I think I made my point perfectly clear, Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest via inherant changes in species is supported by scientific facts and is widely accepted as such.

The PIttdown Man - (the president is simply being used as an illustration of adversity, in connection to the discovery of the skull)

Between June and September 1912 they together recovered more fragments of the skull and half of the lower jaw bone. Arthur Smith Woodward, keeper of the geological department at the British Museum. From the British Museum's reconstruction of the skull, Woodward proposed that Piltdown man represented an evolutionary missing link between ape and man, since the combination of a human-like cranium with an ape-like jaw tended to support the notion then prevailing in England that human evolution began with the brain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

If Evolution began for what we refer to as the "modern human or homosapien", in the human brain. Then at some point in history "survival of the fittest" took a back seat to "intelligence". And mankind began to become a willing participant in his own "evolutionary process". I am also suggesting that this "intelligence" was introduced by beings with a greater intelligence, and I am also suggesting that it is a miscalculation to rule this conclusion out. Simply put: "Evolution" can never become the sole authoritative progenitor of man. Its inherently incorrect when it attempts this disposition, and that is why it has never left the landing pad.

Mr Darwin wrote:The suggestion that we are as a result of a creator in some way belongs in a different belief system, I am not in a position to prove that isn't the case as there is no evidence to disprove it. It is all a matter of what you are prepared to believe in. If as you believe we may have found our way here through other means, again, until there is empirical proof to support this, I believe it is fantasy.

Mr Darwin.

Evolution is the result of natural selection by adversity. When "Intelligence", even the "Intelligence" of man, became a primary factor in traditional evolutionary selection, then at this point, man became a creator to his own evolution.

I have to disagree, as long as intelligence can redirect or affect evolution with man, by man or another force, then in this capacity. A "Creator" cannot be separated from "Evolution".

I hate to say it, but "evolution" needs some serious methodology overhauls made to it, especially since we are in the "information age" and intelligence has never before in our history directed us, like it is directing us now. And this is a divide between "survival of the fittest"- evolution. And "creator based intelligent design" - evolution.


Thanks Again for the Response.

Hello again,

Who said evolution began in the brain, again by the very notion that all traits by continued evolution are inherantly progressed. Earliest homonids were no different from the other early mammals, there was no uniqueness which separated them from these other early species.

General intelligence is widely accepted as the ability to acquire and apply knowledge. Many scientific studies have proved that much of it is heritable and passed down from generation to generation. What this also proves is that human intelligence has progressed since the emergence of the first hominids, much of this can be explained via the ongoing evolution of the genetic organisms in species. Evolution is not as a result of adversity, it is as a result of adaptability, again, "survival of the fittest" supports and further backs up this thinking. Whilst there are several genetic explanations for improved intelligence, with several genes directly involved in progressive intelligence, there are also environmental and migrational factors that have influenced human intelligence. The migration of humans to all areas of the earth played a large part in further development of intelligence to progress the cognitive abilities in order to enable them to function in the social niche they had created.

It is clear, that as a species, Homo sapien's exhibit a broad range of intelligences, of which 75 per cent can be attributed to the progressive evolution of the genetic make up, the fact that there are these genes which control intelligence and provide the platform for evolution and natural selection to act upon further supports the notion that intelligence begins via evolution. During the early development of the human race there were many challenges in finding food and reproduction than we face today, which make the mechanisms of natural selection much more important, and it is in this realm which further promotes the principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest which allowed humans to progress as a more intellectual species.

This higher intelligence which had evolved in humans also allowed a newer intelligence, known as "Social Intelligence" or "Emotional Intelligence" . someone with a high emotional intelligence would be better adapted to get along in a group and avoid conflict in that group. Through evolution and natural selection those with a lower emotional intelligence would be excluded from the group and be less likely to survive and reproduce with their peers who were able to work in groups and hence, would benefit from the advantages a group provided, for defense, food gathering and general welfare. Although this skill would have been very important when humans were less independant, it is still applicable in today's environment, as those with a low emotional intelligence are less likely to form connections with others. All these traits are modifications within the species through inherant changes brought about through a progressive and higher evolution.

Mr Darwin.

NB : this is Mr Darwin, timed out whilst composing.

evolutionist wrote:
Evolution is not as a result of adversity, it is as a result of adaptability, again, "survival of the fittest" supports and further backs up this thinking. Whilst there are several genetic explanations for improved intelligence, with several genes directly involved in progressive intelligence, there are also environmental and migrational factors that have influenced human intelligence. The migration of humans to all areas of the earth played a large part in further development of intelligence to progress the cognitive abilities in order to enable them to function in the social niche they had created.

In the Primordial Era, and Prehistorical Era's of the earth, mankind has existed as the subject of circumstance. As a result, "evolution" was never anything more than "survival of the fittest". Today, mankind has developed hospitals, prison systems, and advanced agricultural practices. None of which has meant much, considering the rampant criminal population, rampant disease - including diseases resulting from sexual misconduct, and a persistent hunger problem.

All of which is the result of a "human enigma", that represents humanities inability to improve its conditions, that has become defined by a few ethnic groups, and a general classification of the population that is sub servant to the cause of suffering.

"Intelligent Design" the "evolution" of "evolution", has never taken place. And as a result, society as a whole behaves like it is in the primordial age of "survival of the fittest". This kind of moral and ethical dilemma can only be solved with foreign improvisation, weather by god or by alien or by both.

Mankind hasn't behaved in the capacity of being "intelligent" and as such, nuclear threats are common place, and terrorism is the new cultural trend, mankind has not out grown "survival of the fittest", and development and man's behavior is not defined by traditional "survival of the fittest" precepts. Your conclusion is the more correct conclusion, at least for the moment. I however, am demonstration a conclusion.

evolutionist wrote:It is clear, that as a species, Homo sapien's exhibit a broad range of intelligences, of which 75 per cent can be attributed to the progressive evolution of the genetic make up, the fact that there are these genes which control intelligence and provide the platform for evolution and natural selection to act upon further supports the notion that intelligence begins via evolution. During the early development of the human race there were many challenges in finding food and reproduction than we face today, which make the mechanisms of natural selection much more important, and it is in this realm which further promotes the principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest which allowed humans to progress as a more intellectual species.

The criminal rate, and murder rate, are at its highest points in human history. These rates continue to climb yearly, and is evident with each new census. Normally, this would be referred to as "devolution" or a evolutionary "falling back". If this is the tendency of mankind, and it is according to all of modern and documented history. Then without the intervention of a "foreign intelligence" it is unlikely, mankind would of survived as long as it has in the past, or as long as it intends to in the future.

Since mankind is the dominant species in the planet, "natural selection" is unlikely to apple. And from at least modern history, no particular race of people has been ruled out, at least not yet. But of course i'm referring to the temporal nature of mankind's inability to behave intelligently at least in this earth.

evolutionist wrote:This higher intelligence which had evolved in humans also allowed a newer intelligence, known as "Social Intelligence" or "Emotional Intelligence" . someone with a high emotional intelligence would be better adapted to get along in a group and avoid conflict in that group. Through evolution and natural selection those with a lower emotional intelligence would be excluded from the group and be less likely to survive and reproduce with their peers who were able to work in groups and hence, would benefit from the advantages a group provided, for defense, food gathering and general welfare. Although this skill would have been very important when humans were less independant, it is still applicable in today's environment, as those with a low emotional intelligence are less likely to form connections with others. All these traits are modifications within the species through inherant changes brought about through a progressive and higher evolution.

Mr Darwin.

NB : this is Mr Darwin, timed out whilst composing.

[/quote]

There no evidence that the difference in degrees of intelligence from man versus the mammal population, is an indication that mankind treats itself with more dignity as compared to the "mammal" population.

Large groups of animals do not target and kill each other over philosophical differences, and they do not do so persistently nor have they appointed a tolerance for certain segments of their populations for this task, unlike humanity in its current and temporary state.

Simply put without intervention, mankind will suffer until it dies, this is demonstrated most accurately by all of recorded history, and is a behavior trait of mankind, that is at least a mainstay in this earth, and with the current ethnic pallet as it currently stands.

thanks again for the response Mr. Darwin

Alienation wrote:

evolutionist wrote:
Evolution is not as a result of adversity, it is as a result of adaptability, again, "survival of the fittest" supports and further backs up this thinking. Whilst there are several genetic explanations for improved intelligence, with several genes directly involved in progressive intelligence, there are also environmental and migrational factors that have influenced human intelligence. The migration of humans to all areas of the earth played a large part in further development of intelligence to progress the cognitive abilities in order to enable them to function in the social niche they had created.

In the Primordial Era, and Prehistorical Era's of the earth, mankind has existed as the subject of circumstance. As a result, "evolution" was never anything more than "survival of the fittest". Today, mankind has developed hospitals, prison systems, and advanced agricultural practices. None of which has meant much, considering the rampant criminal population, rampant disease - including diseases resulting from sexual misconduct, and a persistent hunger problem.

All of which is the result of a "human enigma", that represents humanities inability to improve its conditions, that has become defined by a few ethnic groups, and a general classification of the population that is sub servant to the cause of suffering.

"Intelligent Design" the "evolution" of "evolution", has never taken place. And as a result, society as a whole behaves like it is in the primordial age of "survival of the fittest". This kind of moral and ethical dilemma can only be solved with foreign improvisation, weather by god or by alien or by both.

Mankind hasn't behaved in the capacity of being "intelligent" and as such, nuclear threats are common place, and terrorism is the new cultural trend, mankind has not out grown "survival of the fittest", and development and man's behavior is not defined by traditional "survival of the fittest" precepts. Your conclusion is the more correct conclusion, at least for the moment. I however, am demonstration a conclusion.

evolutionist wrote:It is clear, that as a species, Homo sapien's exhibit a broad range of intelligences, of which 75 per cent can be attributed to the progressive evolution of the genetic make up, the fact that there are these genes which control intelligence and provide the platform for evolution and natural selection to act upon further supports the notion that intelligence begins via evolution. During the early development of the human race there were many challenges in finding food and reproduction than we face today, which make the mechanisms of natural selection much more important, and it is in this realm which further promotes the principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest which allowed humans to progress as a more intellectual species.

The criminal rate, and murder rate, are at its highest points in human history. These rates continue to climb yearly, and is evident with each new census. Normally, this would be referred to as "devolution" or a evolutionary "falling back". If this is the tendency of mankind, and it is according to all of modern and documented history. Then without the intervention of a "foreign intelligence" it is unlikely, mankind would of survived as long as it has in the past, or as long as it intends to in the future.

Since mankind is the dominant species in the planet, "natural selection" is unlikely to apple. And from at least modern history, no particular race of people has been ruled out, at least not yet. But of course i'm referring to the temporal nature of mankind's inability to behave intelligently at least in this earth.

evolutionist wrote:This higher intelligence which had evolved in humans also allowed a newer intelligence, known as "Social Intelligence" or "Emotional Intelligence" . someone with a high emotional intelligence would be better adapted to get along in a group and avoid conflict in that group. Through evolution and natural selection those with a lower emotional intelligence would be excluded from the group and be less likely to survive and reproduce with their peers who were able to work in groups and hence, would benefit from the advantages a group provided, for defense, food gathering and general welfare. Although this skill would have been very important when humans were less independant, it is still applicable in today's environment, as those with a low emotional intelligence are less likely to form connections with others. All these traits are modifications within the species through inherant changes brought about through a progressive and higher evolution.



Mr Darwin.

NB : this is Mr Darwin, timed out whilst composing.

There no evidence that the difference in degrees of intelligence from man versus the mammal population, is an indication that mankind treats itself with more dignity as compared to the "mammal" population.

Large groups of animals do not target and kill each other over philosophical differences, and they do not do so persistently nor have they appointed a tolerance for certain segments of their populations for this task, unlike humanity in its current and temporary state.

Simply put without intervention, mankind will suffer until it dies, this is demonstrated most accurately by all of recorded history, and is a behavior trait of mankind, that is at least a mainstay in this earth, and with the current ethnic pallet as it currently stands.

thanks again for the response Mr. Darwin[/quote]


Hi Alienation, how are you,

I must say, you make some very prominent statements, and whilst I would be inclined to partially agree, I do believe much of what you say is based moreso around human behaviour. You have highlighted the level of criminality that exists, and whilst this could be attributed to the debate surrounding emergent intelligence, again, I believe this is centred more around social education, or lack of. You could argue that we are inherantly "too intelligent" for our own good. The points you raise are very valid and if we take it literally we notice patterns of behaviour which have always existed in humans. To protect by any means against an enemy or oppressor is ingrained within the human psyche, and it is this arena where intelligence is misused.

Our overall intelligence is not in question, you state that criminality and sexual promiscuity over-rides morality, and in some way this negates our achievements. I dont agree with these statements, It is through such high intelligence which has enabled us to create the societies we exist in, and again this is only through a higher evolution than other species. We have advanced so far ahead of our earlier ancestors, we no longer live in caves or on open plains, humans have improved their conditions inherantly from our original position on earth, socially, intellectually and technologically. I would go as far to say that our evolution is speeding up rather than slowing down, given the great advancements we have made in many areas.

It would appear that humans are becoming morally bankrupt, this has nothing to do with evolution, or "devolution" as you term it, this is everything to do with status, privilege and position in society against poverty, unemployment and poor education. The intelligence exists in all people, a murderer is no less intelligent than you or I, it is the morality that is questionable. In these austere times we are all experiencing it could be argued that criminality could increase further due to the gulf that is being created between the have's and have not's, the recent riots in britain prove that in times of trouble there is going to be a social backlash. I am not saying this is right and I have argued vehemantly against the riotors, but it is a social and economic situation which causes criminality.

As a species I would argue that humans have the greatest capacity to interact with the world around them than any other species, you state, humans appear not to have great sympathy with their own kind as much as other animals exhibit, but again this doesn't preclude less intelligence, we as a species are instinctive and still exist as warriors and protectors, but these by your own admission are behavioural traits and do not indicate a lack of intelligence or a significant collapse of our evolution.

Thank you again,

Mr Darwin.

The Tyranny of inhumanity, will be overtoppled. Neither is it acceptable for civilization to profiteer off, "demoralization", and "value based theological prosecution". The extermination of the jewish people in ww2 was unacceptable, the terrorist attacks in 9/11 against the world trade centers - were unacceptable. And keeping people and groups of people in society that abuse the public trust, and preach inhumanity, and hoard acts of inhumanity and attrition. This is unacceptable. Some nations in particular like the USA, have simply been abused to the extent where they may believe this is acceptable, but it is not acceptable.

The modern and "futuristic" we have come comparatively, the more barbaric we have become. This is a decision humanity has made by choice, and not as the result of evolution or some other external process. This is a temporary condition. Accepting the philosophies of groups of individuals, ethnic or otherwise, that hurt humanity as a result of participating in humanity, is unacceptable. The powers that rest over society, are incapable of resolving the matter, but a superior power has and will provide the solution...

Mr Darwin wrote:
Hi Alienation, how are you,

I must say, you make some very prominent statements, and whilst I would be inclined to partially agree, I do believe much of what you say is based moreso around human behaviour. You have highlighted the level of criminality that exists, and whilst this could be attributed to the debate surrounding emergent intelligence, again, I believe this is centred more around social education, or lack of. You could argue that we are inherantly "too intelligent" for our own good. The points you raise are very valid and if we take it literally we notice patterns of behaviour which have always existed in humans. To protect by any means against an enemy or oppressor is ingrained within the human psyche, and it is this arena where intelligence is misused.

The last and most definitive feature to evolve and direct human behavior was the human mind. The act of "murder" and "criminality", is largely unique if not unique to the human condition. Those acts require no "justification" are counter productive, and contrary to the evolutionary pattern of man, in the prehistorics and post modern eras. Why is this significant? This behavior is an act in direct opposition to "human intelligence", this is a deliberate counter intuitive act. Designed to defeat "human intelligence", by consequence. This can only be described as a "devolution", not as a function of "evolution". Since the human brain, and "human intelligence" was the last thing to evolve. Coming under fire by a malignent population of ethnics or otherwise is not a sign of "evolution".

Mr Darwin wrote:Our overall intelligence is not in question, you state that criminality and sexual promiscuity over-rides morality, and in some way this negates our achievements. I dont agree with these statements, It is through such high intelligence which has enabled us to create the societies we exist in, and again this is only through a higher evolution than other species. We have advanced so far ahead of our earlier ancestors, we no longer live in caves or on open plains, humans have improved their conditions inherantly from our original position on earth, socially, intellectually and technologically. I would go as far to say that our evolution is speeding up rather than slowing down, given the great advancements we have made in many areas.

Incorrect. I have stated "criminality" and "murder", are acts that override higher intelligence. "Sexual promiscuity, and Rape" are two different things. Acts of incest can be considered a form of rape, and divorce can be considered to be a form of sexual promiscuity, to give examples. Both of which could be designed into "criminal assaults on morality", i'm not saying that sexual promiscuity and divorce are, but that they can be. I'm deliberately not including some of the recent primate studies I have read.

The way I see things. The difference in intelligence and technology is conjecture, between the homosapien population, of today and yesterday. The reason being, "evolution" on a biological level has not been proved during the last 10,000 or so years. Since society, has decided it doesn't need hospitals, social security systems, safety net programs, or law and order. But rather "survival of the fittest", and not "intelligenct design" as part of its "evolutionary program". Then the ancient civilizations were better off, because they did not make excuses to justify the slaughter of the widow and fatherless. Something we see today, that seems to follow the development process of man, example: abortion at infancy, and senior citizen abuse at maturity (by reason of societial neglect).

Mr Darwin wrote:It would appear that humans are becoming morally bankrupt, this has nothing to do with evolution, or "devolution" as you term it, this is everything to do with status, privilege and position in society against poverty, unemployment and poor education. The intelligence exists in all people, a murderer is no less intelligent than you or I, it is the morality that is questionable. In these austere times we are all experiencing it could be argued that criminality could increase further due to the gulf that is being created between the have's and have not's, the recent riots in britain prove that in times of trouble there is going to be a social backlash. I am not saying this is right and I have argued vehemantly against the riotors, but it is a social and economic situation which causes criminality.

Mankind has evolved a sense of "emotional intelligence" and "social intelligence" according to one of your previous statements. Then it would follow that profiteering off of "demoralization", and "value based philosophical prosecution". Is devolution, and not a form of evolution.

Mr Darwin wrote:As a species I would argue that humans have the greatest capacity to interact with the world around them than any other species, you state, humans appear not to have great sympathy with their own kind as much as other animals exhibit, but again this doesn't preclude less intelligence, we as a species are instinctive and still exist as warriors and protectors, but these by your own admission are behavioural traits and do not indicate a lack of intelligence or a significant collapse of our evolution.

Thank you again,

Mr Darwin.

Bacteria has the greatest capacity to interact with the world. Bacteria outnumbers mankind but an almost infinite number to 1 ratio. Not all of humanity, thrives off of inhumanity, those are the people who will become extinct. The propensity or enmity of mankind to need to become counterproductive against its own intregrity as an intelligent being, will also become extinct with this earth, as part of the extinction directed towards humanity. This is the end time.

Thanks again for your response

Alienation wrote:

The Tyranny of inhumanity, will be overtoppled. Neither is it acceptable for civilization to profiteer off, "demoralization", and "value based theological prosecution". The extermination of the jewish people in ww2 was unacceptable, the terrorist attacks in 9/11 against the world trade centers - were unacceptable. And keeping people and groups of people in society that abuse the public trust, and preach inhumanity, and hoard acts of inhumanity and attrition. This is unacceptable. Some nations in particular like the USA, have simply been abused to the extent where they may believe this is acceptable, but it is not acceptable.

The modern and "futuristic" we have come comparatively, the more barbaric we have become. This is a decision humanity has made by choice, and not as the result of evolution or some other external process. This is a temporary condition. Accepting the philosophies of groups of individuals, ethnic or otherwise, that hurt humanity as a result of participating in humanity, is unacceptable. The powers that rest over society, are incapable of resolving the matter, but a superior power has and will provide the solution...

Mr Darwin wrote:
Hi Alienation, how are you,

I must say, you make some very prominent statements, and whilst I would be inclined to partially agree, I do believe much of what you say is based moreso around human behaviour. You have highlighted the level of criminality that exists, and whilst this could be attributed to the debate surrounding emergent intelligence, again, I believe this is centred more around social education, or lack of. You could argue that we are inherantly "too intelligent" for our own good. The points you raise are very valid and if we take it literally we notice patterns of behaviour which have always existed in humans. To protect by any means against an enemy or oppressor is ingrained within the human psyche, and it is this arena where intelligence is misused.

The last and most definitive feature to evolve and direct human behavior was the human mind. The act of "murder" and "criminality", is largely unique if not unique to the human condition. Those acts require no "justification" are counter productive, and contrary to the evolutionary pattern of man, in the prehistorics and post modern eras. Why is this significant? This behavior is an act in direct opposition to "human intelligence", this is a deliberate counter intuitive act. Designed to defeat "human intelligence", by consequence. This can only be described as a "devolution", not as a function of "evolution". Since the human brain, and "human intelligence" was the last thing to evolve. Coming under fire by a malignent population of ethnics or otherwise is not a sign of "evolution".

Mr Darwin wrote:Our overall intelligence is not in question, you state that criminality and sexual promiscuity over-rides morality, and in some way this negates our achievements. I dont agree with these statements, It is through such high intelligence which has enabled us to create the societies we exist in, and again this is only through a higher evolution than other species. We have advanced so far ahead of our earlier ancestors, we no longer live in caves or on open plains, humans have improved their conditions inherantly from our original position on earth, socially, intellectually and technologically. I would go as far to say that our evolution is speeding up rather than slowing down, given the great advancements we have made in many areas.

Incorrect. I have stated "criminality" and "murder", are acts that override higher intelligence. "Sexual promiscuity, and Rape" are two different things. Acts of incest can be considered a form of rape, and divorce can be considered to be a form of sexual promiscuity, to give examples. Both of which could be designed into "criminal assaults on morality", i'm not saying that sexual promiscuity and divorce are, but that they can be. I'm deliberately not including some of the recent primate studies I have read.

The way I see things. The difference in intelligence and technology is conjecture, between the homosapien population, of today and yesterday. The reason being, "evolution" on a biological level has not been proved during the last 10,000 or so years. Since society, has decided it doesn't need hospitals, social security systems, safety net programs, or law and order. But rather "survival of the fittest", and not "intelligenct design" as part of its "evolutionary program". Then the ancient civilizations were better off, because they did not make excuses to justify the slaughter of the widow and fatherless. Something we see today, that seems to follow the development process of man, example: abortion at infancy, and senior citizen abuse at maturity (by reason of societial neglect).

Mr Darwin wrote:It would appear that humans are becoming morally bankrupt, this has nothing to do with evolution, or "devolution" as you term it, this is everything to do with status, privilege and position in society against poverty, unemployment and poor education. The intelligence exists in all people, a murderer is no less intelligent than you or I, it is the morality that is questionable. In these austere times we are all experiencing it could be argued that criminality could increase further due to the gulf that is being created between the have's and have not's, the recent riots in britain prove that in times of trouble there is going to be a social backlash. I am not saying this is right and I have argued vehemantly against the riotors, but it is a social and economic situation which causes criminality.

Mankind has evolved a sense of "emotional intelligence" and "social intelligence" according to one of your previous statements. Then it would follow that profiteering off of "demoralization", and "value based philosophical prosecution". Is devolution, and not a form of evolution.

Mr Darwin wrote:As a species I would argue that humans have the greatest capacity to interact with the world around them than any other species, you state, humans appear not to have great sympathy with their own kind as much as other animals exhibit, but again this doesn't preclude less intelligence, we as a species are instinctive and still exist as warriors and protectors, but these by your own admission are behavioural traits and do not indicate a lack of intelligence or a significant collapse of our evolution.

Thank you again,

Mr Darwin.

Bacteria has the greatest capacity to interact with the world. Bacteria outnumbers mankind but an almost infinite number to 1 ratio. Not all of humanity, thrives off of inhumanity, those are the people who will become extinct. The propensity or enmity of mankind to need to become counterproductive against its own intregrity as an intelligent being, will also become extinct with this earth, as part of the extinction directed towards humanity. This is the end time.

Thanks again for your response

Hi Alienation,

Thank you again for your response. Whilst I can see your statements are well thought out and form a valid opinion, I believe you are concentrating too much on the negative traits within humans. I do accept that as a species we have a lower tolerance of each other than other species, but, this is brought about by our high intelligence. We dont have to put up with the neighbour making a noise nuisance all night, we dont have to tolerate being abused, we can make our own choices and decisions, because we have the intelligence to do so. most people dont commit crime, they dont commit murder, because we can rationalise a situation and deal with it accordingly. However, I would say that if we look at some of the most infamous murders, you will find high levels of thought and planning, not only to carry out the murder but also to try and get away with it, so this alone negates that intelligence does not exist in murderers and other criminals, I reiterate, it is a behavioural and moral issue when discussing criminality. I dont believe that acts of murder and other criminality over-ride higher intelligence, these are acts carried out either randomly or through circumstance and do not in any way negate intelligence, unless you plead diminished responsibility.

Society needs rules and regulations to guard itself, it cannot be self governing, that would create a anarchic state where anything goes and make up the rules as you go along. However, survival of the fittest still prevails, the big conglomerate company riding roughshod over the small competitor. This is nothing to do with lawlessness. If you start up a business and you dont invest in it and make the necessary outlays needed to maintain the survival of your business, you are not going to be in business very long. This is the typical dog eat dog existance which dictates who stands and who falls by the wayside.

Because we operate on a high emotional level we behave according to our emotions and mood. When we are faced with a particular issue we look into ourselves for an emotion to deal with what we are experiencing, how we deal with what we are faced with determines how we fit in socially. It is when we cannot find a response and react negatively which compromises how we are viewed. We are neurally programmed to respond in particular ways to differing situations, our brains are hardwired to select the correct emotional response in any given situation. It is only when we cannot find a relevant response that we exhibit hostility, I concede this is likely because of a low emotional intelligence.

I dont believe as a species we are "Barbaric" maybe in times gone by, but not today, unless you are speaking of some far flung primitive backwater which has yet to catch up with the modern world. Of course we cause unimaginable suffering to our own kind via the wars we engage in, we have created the most hellish weapons to use against one another, but, it is through our intelligence and evolvement which has enabled us to do this. The only thing in question is how we are mis-using our intelligence, if for example, China had this weapon of mass destruction, then it is obvious other countries are going to have them in order to fight back if the need arises. It is the typical garden gate mentality, protect what is yours at all costs, and in doing so lets annihilate everyone else as well.

The course of evolution is a slow process, and we as a species seem to be doing fine in the wider scheme of things it will take another extinction scenario to kick start a whole new evolutionary cycle. When that is creates a whole new debate.

Thank you again.

Mr Darwin.

Any philosophy that turncoats elements in society like criminal behavior and murdur, and negates the repercussions of theology that endanger the public safety. Is highly suspect as being a deliberate act, reflecting a "malicious and gainful attempt" of somekind or another, and likely not a reflection of the truth. Since we are in a capitalist society, that has been running rampant more so then ever over the last few decades, this is simply the reality of the way we should view theologies. That are incoherent.

Evolution has become one of these theologies. When its convenient, the social implications of its teachings are put aside, and when its inconvenient, the intelligence of the reader is in question. We see these kings of traits in "ponzi schemes". The fact is, depending where you are in the world, for example: weather you are in the united states, europe or asia. You will be more or less likely to be subjected to teachings that put off notions of humanism, for the benefit of "profiteering".

I think traditional evolution shows its age, and as a result of the laborous works of a few, traditional beliefs are gradually turning into more logical, and less incoherent adaptations of centuries old ideas, which came about on the frontiers of society, and the prospect of the "social elite". Insights into early concepts of the significance of man, which erroneously lead into the tolerance of groups of individuals in society, who's needs seem to reflect stances on traditional evolution.



Thanks again for the response, but I think i'll give another reader a chance to respond

Alienation wrote:Any philosophy that turncoats elements in society like criminal behavior and murdur, and negates the repercussions of theology that endanger the public safety. Is highly suspect as being a deliberate act, reflecting a "malicious and gainful attempt" of somekind or another, and likely not a reflection of the truth. Since we are in a capitalist society, that has been running rampant more so then ever over the last few decades, this is simply the reality of the way we should view theologies. That are incoherent.

Evolution has become one of these theologies. When its convenient, the social implications of its teachings are put aside, and when its inconvenient, the intelligence of the reader is in question. We see these kings of traits in "ponzi schemes". The fact is, depending where you are in the world, for example: weather you are in the united states, europe or asia. You will be more or less likely to be subjected to teachings that put off notions of humanism, for the benefit of "profiteering".

I think traditional evolution shows its age, and as a result of the laborous works of a few, traditional beliefs are gradually turning into more logical, and less incoherent adaptations of centuries old ideas, which came about on the frontiers of society, and the prospect of the "social elite". Insights into early concepts of the significance of man, which erroneously lead into the tolerance of groups of individuals in society, who's needs seem to reflect stances on traditional evolution.



Thanks again for the response, but I think i'll give another reader a chance to respond

Alienation

You are blinded by criminality, murder and such like and suggest that individuals commit murder because they are unintelligent or that society is such, it negates moral evolution and so therefore evolution is not valid in modern society. Wrong on all counts. People commit crime for many reasons, circumstance, position in society and for self gain or gratification. I believe in the mechanics of humanism, without it society falls apart. I am a humanitarian and enjoy what I get from many other people on a philanthropic level. Your comments are very prejudiced in a way which tries to justify your own belief by attacking the very system which allows you to live as comfortably as possible. Nothing is ever straight forward and no system is infallible, but if we can maintain the status quo in the world there is no need to rock the boat.

The whole course of the thread is based around evolution or creation, two belief systems which have been the source of much debate for centuries. It appears that your first response to myself went right off topic, or was at least left field of the topic. However, I am willing to debate what you bring to the table as I can support my belief with hard evidences and facts. What exists in these kind of debates are some very cynical opinions, where the exponents of these views are unwilling to accept what is blatantly obvious. My biggest contention with the whole creation theory is that itself exists on the back of profiteering. No-one has proved that god exists with hard evidence, I dont have to disprove god's existence. You talk of "traditional Evolution" there is no such thing, evolution exists on many platforms, biologically, spiritually, and technologically.

Your image of an ape like president is very telling. It shows that you cannot accept our true origins and so mock what you cannot understand, it is very far side and satirical but not historically accurate. Your final statement also reveals a single mindedness in how you present yourself, and a need to be in control.

Mr Darwin.

Tim wrote:The main problem I have with purely believing in evolution is that there are too many assumptions being made. You have to assume that when the dinosaurs were destroyed/died off that this allowed humans to develop from the remaining organisms on earth. This to me is a giant leap in the history off the evolutionary process. I believe in god from my own personal experiences. Here is a picture of the type of dog that I own. Tell me she was created by accident.

She was 'created' by selctive breeding by humans. The extinction of the dinosaurs allowed the surviving land-living organisms to exploit the niches created by the dinosaurs leaving the scene. Mammalian forms had existed side-by-side with both dinosaurs and early dinosaur ancestors since the early Triassic-late Permain Periods as small nocturnal animals and emerged to fill the gaps 65 Mya. Because the fossil record is incomplete, and always will be, it DOES look like a huge leap in the evolutionary process but the idea of evolution is sound. As for your persoanl belief in God that shouldn't come into it. Many, many scientists whether physicists, chemist or evolutionary biologists have no problem reconciling a deity with the Big Bang or indeed evolution. For some of them a deity started the universe and let it run.