see:

http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=71515488&f=90&p=481947478#p481947478

you can see my thoughts there

Also, i noticed your favorite TV show is star trek.
Mine too! I love that series, my second cousin is Brent Spiner, well he's adopted into my family but still second cousin hehe.

Kinda pointless to have a discussion with a typical trek fan though. I like the show, but that's it, the show.
For all I know you believe in multiple universes
Which is fine, it's your right to have your own beliefs.

But it is impossible to have a discussion with someone who is closed minded on issues, such as Christianity - if you think it's ridiculous, you always will until you think otherwise. No one can convince you to believe in it, doesn't matter how much I write.

I only write on these forms because i enjoy hearing where people think we came from and different point of views.

This post was edited by herbdoc on Nov 6 2014 09:20pm

"In its current state".

What are things people who don't understand evolution day

I tried to translate this into english, but correct me if I misinterpreted this. --> You are saying I do not understand evolution.

From a natural selection perspective, humans are at the top of the food chain.

We are currently having to actively "protect" endangered species because we would wipe them out otherwise.

How exactly do you think that any other species compares to the human species as a whole, in terms of the key component that facilitates natural selection-- survival?

My point is we are so above the other species in terms of mental capacity, which is obviously the most viable permutation a species can manifest.

It is unreasonable to think that any other species can or will develop our mental capacity (due to the entropy involved in the evolutionary process), and thus in order to preserve intelligent life, we must preserve our species.

That is all I am saying, and I have no idea why you would attempt to argue with me on this.

"From a natural selection perspective humans are at the top of the food chain" - Natural selection has no "perspective" other than survival. If we are talking in terms of survival bacteria outnumber us several quadrillions of times over. Add to the fact that every animal alive today is the pinnacle of natural selection because they too have survived.

"My point is we are so above the other species in terms of mental capacity, which is obviously the most viable permutation a species can manifest" - It depends on the environment. The most valuable permutation depends on what you are surviving. In the ocean by a thermal vent the most valuable permutation is heat resistance and the appropriate metabolism. For humans we have mastered our environment, but the same can be said of every species.

"Due to the entropy involved in the evolutionary process" - I take this to mean the randomness in the evolutionary process, and that's not true. There were other species which also developed intelligence, we just happened to kill them. While you may say that makes us the pinnacle, I would agree since we are alive and they aren't, it's silly to think that if we disappeared today another species wouldn't eventually take our place as the most intelligent species.

I'm arguing because you doin't know what you're talking about.

I don't think I'm close minded on Christianity, it very well may all be true. I just can't see how anyone can have a firm belief in anything about the origins of life on either the religious or scientific side. It's all guess work on the science side and faith on the religious side.

My liking Star Trek makes me a "typical star trek fan" that thinks it's more than just a show and who can't participate in a discussion?

This post was edited by RzChaos on Nov 7 2014 04:57pm

I already stated that survival is the "key component that facilitates" natural selection. Natural selection however is not survival, it is the adaptation that comes from survival due to reproduction.

Thor123422, those bacteria are not intelligent life forms, and they live in extreme conditions. The majority of this planet is not in such an extreme condition, and thus your second argument is also baseless in this conversation.

Entropy means disorder/randomness within the context I used.

The other intelligent species that formed, such as Neanderthals, had a common ancestor to homo sapiens with intelligence as they were all very biologically similar to us.

Therefore, my argument remains completely valid, and your statement "it's silly to think.. another species wouldn't eventually take our place as the most intelligent species" is patently false.

This post was edited by PixileDust on Nov 10 2014 08:32pm

Pretty much proves my point, we are the masters of our own environment, but the same can be said of any other species which thrives today. There is no "pinnacle" of evolution, because every lineage alive today has lasted just as long as every other. Until every other species which originated on Earth is dead except humans we will not be the pinnacle of evolution.

It is not useless that we had a common ancestor with Neaderthals. We have a common ancestor with EVERY LIVING THING. We have a common ancestor with apes and it's very possible if humans were eliminated another ape evolution would take our place in the future.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Nov 11 2014 02:03am

Thors argument is enhanced by the idea that humans cannot live without bacteria, however bacteria can do fine without us

Yeah, what I'm saying is literally taught in every first college biology class, that evolution has no pinnacle

I think you two are arguing over semantics at this point. His point is that humans are dominant species of this planet, but he's using the wrong words to illustrate his point. The planet's most dominant species is not interchangeable with the most evolved species.

His point in OP is still valid and strong. We are a product of countless generations of reproduction. If the dinosaurs were not wiped out there is every possibility they could be the dominant species on the planet today. As intellectual as we have become, should we leave the fate of our species to chance? With an alarming number of countries in the world possessing nuclear weaponry, it does not take a farfetched imagination to think of the worst case outcome.

Would it not be wise to have humans expand their genes to other locations for self-preservation?