open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked What about encountering Aliens or non-humanoid entities ?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic

Kaylana Syi
Minmatar
Coreli Corporation
Naraka.
Posted - 2006.08.19 15:00:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Niivvy
u saying that humans will look the same in 5 million years if rediculous, first how can u know this u dont! chances are we wont even be here in 5 million years giving the average lifespan of a species is only around a million. and with our appatite for self distruction id guess less.


So... where did you get this time machine of yours that you can make absolute statements on evolution is the difinative proof of our existance?

madaluap
Gallente
Anthrax Foundation
Posted - 2006.08.19 15:04:00 - [62]
 

We should have fluctions in eve sec systems, because pirates or roque invade it...

Basically in a week jita is invaded and camped by pirates and the system dropped to 0.4...

/emote looks @ all the rattlesnakes, nightmares and other carebear lvl 4 toys that will vaporize and be used in pvp..


arrr YARRRR!!

Kaylana Syi
Minmatar
Coreli Corporation
Naraka.
Posted - 2006.08.19 15:10:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: madaluap
We should have fluctions in eve sec systems, because pirates or roque invade it...

Basically in a week jita is invaded and camped by pirates and the system dropped to 0.4...

/emote looks @ all the rattlesnakes, nightmares and other carebear lvl 4 toys that will vaporize and be used in pvp..


arrr YARRRR!!


I'd get a nightmare and never undock it. It's name would be 'the precious.'

Niivvy
Caldari
Posted - 2006.08.19 15:20:00 - [64]
 

Quote:
So... where did you get this time machine of yours that you can make absolute statements on evolution is the difinative proof of our existance?


considering humans look diffrent now to what they did 500 years ago (hight weight stature build) i dont think i need a time machine to assume that in 5 MILLION years we are going to be even more diffrent.

im not trying to look into the future thats impossable(for now who knows what we will discover in those 5 million years) but more looking to the past. all life has been changing, evolving since the first single celled lifeforms to the mose evolutionary advanced life today. and this is NOT humans we are a young reltitvley unevolved species.

so what makes u think its not reasonabe to assume we will still be evolving hence diffrent looking in the far future?

vyperpit
Gallente
EVE Employment Agency
Posted - 2006.08.19 15:31:00 - [65]
 

Edited by: vyperpit on 19/08/2006 15:35:55
Originally by: Niivvy
u saying that humans will look the same in 5 million years if rediculous, first how can u know this u dont! chances are we wont even be here in 5 million years giving the average lifespan of a species is only around a million. and with our appatite for self distruction id guess less.


all the things you point out are wrong, rich people do not live longer because they have better genetics, its because they can afford better doctors/medicine ect

also what is there to stop 2 stupid people breeding, there is nothing so our race has stopped evolving. think of this, 200 years ago infertile people could not breed thus they did not pass on their genetic material. now some can, and they are passing on "bad" genetic material. even if you are born death and blind because of your genetics there is a great chance u will still have children and pass on your blind/death genetics which would of been impossible before civilization! hope this makes sense


erm maybe a simpler example, lets assume global warming takes off and the temperate of the world rises 1 degree per year for the next 30years, at the end of that 30years, the average temp of the uk would be 50 degree Celsius. this is afaik too high a temp for a average human to live at. you can now either die and let the 0.001% of humans that can survive this continue and then their kids can also survive. or you can get climate control system installed into your home. or perhaps even fly further north where the temp might be suitable for you. thus humans don’t evolve to this change, they just change their surroundings to suit them



Originally by: Niivvy
Quote:
So... where did you get this time machine of yours that you can make absolute statements on evolution is the difinative proof of our existance?


considering humans look diffrent now to what they did 500 years ago (hight weight stature build) i dont think i need a time machine to assume that in 5 MILLION years we are going to be even more diffrent.


humans did not look different 500 years ago, and looking different in the sense of a black person compared to a white person, or a European compared to an Asian doesn’t mean one is more evolved than the other, they are the same in almost every respect.

and things like height and build are dependant on your genetics AND your environment, if you dont get much food or low quality food as a child you will be smaller as an adult.

imo once civilization is made, evolution of that species stops!

Chaddy
Posted - 2006.08.19 15:36:00 - [66]
 

Maybe meeting Shrek(From the movies), was an option. I would run like hell. Hes huuugee!


Stupid troll!ugh

vyperpit
Gallente
EVE Employment Agency
Posted - 2006.08.19 15:38:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: madaluap
We should have fluctions in eve sec systems, because pirates or roque invade it...

Basically in a week jita is invaded and camped by pirates and the system dropped to 0.4...

/emote looks @ all the rattlesnakes, nightmares and other carebear lvl 4 toys that will vaporize and be used in pvp..


arrr YARRRR!!


has been suggested before and is a good idea, but considering 95% of eve are care bare mission runners, the devs will not want to risk their house mortgages

Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
Posted - 2006.08.19 15:45:00 - [68]
 

“also what is there to stop 2 stupid people breeding, there is nothing so our race has stopped evolving.”
Sure 2 stupid people breed but so do 2 smart people so the race hasnt stop evolving only slowed down the speed its evolving at if it has even slowed down.

If what you say is true people today would be the same as 50years ago. But today we have different builds and the average person it not the same as 50 years ago so your theory is wrong. Go look at average clothes size’s from as little as 50 to 30 years ago they wouldn’t fit most people today as the average build of humans has changed. Look at various figures like eye and hair colour the average has changed a lot over a relatively short amount of time.

I do half agree with your point. But you seem to be forgetting the good genetics are also breeding sure with have the stupid people breeding but that doesn’t stop evolution only perhaps slows it down.

In fact you can argue stupid people speed up evolution as they do stupid thing like drink chemicals which cause mutations which they pass to offspring.

Niivvy
Caldari
Posted - 2006.08.19 15:50:00 - [69]
 

Edited by: Niivvy on 19/08/2006 15:52:12
i guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one but the vast majority of evloutanary scientests are with me on this one.

and BTW you said earlier i got the idea of not being able to communicate with an advanced race from some dumb web site, the persom who put forward this theory was Dr Stephen Hawking. perhaps our greatest mind on the planet today.

its been a fun debate but im not going to go round in circles on it

Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
Posted - 2006.08.19 15:54:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Pottsey on 19/08/2006 16:06:48
“Researchers have found that the shape of the human skull has changed significantly over the past 650 years.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4643312.stm
One of many links that prove civilisation does not stop evolution.
EDIT end


“humans did not look different 500 years ago, and looking different in the sense of a black person compared to a white person, or a European compared to an Asian doesn’t mean one is more evolved than the other, they are the same in almost every respect.”
Actually they looked different. Everything is different from shoe size, hair colour, eye colour and height. An average height person now would be tall 500 years ago. Just look how many natural red haired people do you see now? Almost none, that’s evolution. 500 years ago red hair was a lot more common then now. The way things are going there will not be any natural red haired people in 500 years time.




“and things like height and build are dependant on your genetics AND your environment, if you dont get much food or low quality food as a child you will be smaller as an adult.”
True it is genetics AND your environment but it’s still genetics. Say the environment stays the same and you get plenty of food your parents are tall they have tall offspring. The offspring turns out tall due to genetics and has plenty of food so they grow tall and have children of there own, fast forward a few generations and you have even taller people then the starting parents.

Even if the environment stays the same evolution and change’s still happen.




"imo once civilization is made, evolution of that species stops!“
Evidence proves you wrong as people have changed over time. Even when the environment stays the same evolution still happens. There are tons of examples of how people have changed. Just look at census’s from now and 50 years ago.

Niivvy
Caldari
Posted - 2006.08.19 16:31:00 - [71]
 

Very Happythsanks for finding a link, tbh i couldnt be arsed looking for one.

the person who thinks we have stop evolving cos dumb people have sex is nuts!!


Kuolematon
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
Posted - 2006.08.19 16:33:00 - [72]
 

We have them, they are called "Rouge Drones" YARRRR!!

vyperpit
Gallente
EVE Employment Agency
Posted - 2006.08.19 16:44:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Niivvy
Very Happythsanks for finding a link, tbh i couldnt be arsed looking for one.

the person who thinks we have stop evolving cos dumb people have sex is nuts!!




then look at this stuff if u like linkies

"Scientists are split over the theory that natural selection has come to a standstill in the West. Robin McKie reports "
Linkage

"Modern man is said to have evolved until about 100,000 years ago and then to have stopped evolving. Evolution since that time, it is claimed, has been "cultural and social evolution." Biological evolution is unknown among humans in historical times."


goodle this subject and you will find lots of scientist who say the same thing, man has stoped evolving and it makes sense

Niivvy
Caldari
Posted - 2006.08.19 17:10:00 - [74]
 

i read it and its talking as much trash a u do.

as the link its self states

Quote:
That is the stark, controversial view of a group of biologists who believe a Western lifestyle now protects humanity from the forces that used to shape Homo sapiens.


this is the view of the minority of scientets, the ones who will argue over the colour of ****e just to get a grant to do some reserch and stay in a job.

the same scientests who babble on about mundane things just to be difftent. the fact is the accepted and wideley accepted thus the theory with the mountains of selfproving evidence is that we are STILL evolving.

just because some small group of "controversial scientests" say thats its true dosent mean it is..


Dr Shameless
2nd Blood Raven Assault Squad
Majesta Empire
Posted - 2006.08.19 17:15:00 - [75]
 

i think the best would be to reopen the eve gate and introduce some form of corrupted (or mutated, mechanised ...) humans coming from the other side that want to kill/eat/posses etc ... everything in sight :)

Niivvy
Caldari
Posted - 2006.08.19 17:21:00 - [76]
 

lmfao i just properly read that link and if anything it backs up MY argument that evolution still exsists here are some quotes....

Quote:
In other words, intellect - the defining characteristic of our species - is still driving our evolution.


Quote:
'Something very similar could soon happen to humans. In a thousand years, Africa will be populated only by the descendants of those few individuals who are currently immune to the Aids virus
.

Quote:
'There is a premium on sharpness of mind and the ability to accumulate money. Such people tend to have more children and have a better chance of survival


Quote:
brain size has decreased over the past 10,000 years. A similar reduction has also affected our physiques. We are punier and smaller-brained compared with our ancestors only a few millennia ago


all from ure linkage to prove we are NOT evolving lolVery Happy

Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
Posted - 2006.08.19 17:56:00 - [77]
 

"Modern man is said to have evolved until about 100,000 years ago and then to have stopped evolving. Evolution since that time, it is claimed, has been "cultural and social evolution." Biological evolution is unknown among humans in historical times."
Well if you read it you notice they say 1 type of evolution stopped but cultural and social evolution is still impacting us. So evolution in its self is still in effect. Read the above it doesn’t say all evolution stopped it just says the only form of evolution to still effect us is cultural and social evolution. That’s still evolution.

Next check the dates, the page you linked to is almost 7 years old and proven wrong now. The article you link to was written in 2002 and was only an idea with no data to back up what they say. Now fast forward to January 2006 and scientists have proved genetic evolution is still in effect via the difference in skull structure and bones structure dating back 600 years to now.

If we stopped evolving 100,000 years ago then the bones and skulls of our ancestors from 600 years ago would be the same as today. That alone proves your link wrong. There are lots of findings this year that prove genetic evolution is in effect and a lot stronger then we thought. We used to think evolution took 100,000's of years but it's much faster.

Check out graphs plotting average human height, shape e.c.t it’s all changing. Ok the USA has stagnated and not changed height but the rest of the world is still evolving :)





“goodle this subject and you will find lots of scientist who say the same thing, man has stoped evolving and it makes sense”
So what if a few scientist “used” to think like this.
Most have came to there sense’s and looked at the facts. The facts clearly show genetic evolution is still in effect. I cannot find one recent link from a scientist saying evolution has stopped. All the links date back years ago and are no longer true. Even the old links don’t explain how evolution has stopped. Ignoring the facts and saying evolution has stopped does not mean the theory is right. To make it right you need to explain away the facts.

Genetic evolution is a proven fact now. Anyone who says otherwise needs to explain away the facts as something other then genetic evolution. Explain to me how the skull and bone structure changing in the past 100+ years is not evolution? Explain the height difference as well? Food alone doesn’t explain it. Look at a world wide chart of heights. Some places have stagnated like the USA but others like Denmark are clearly still evolving and thats height alone. Look at everything else and the USA is still evolving with the rest of us.

Edania
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2006.08.19 23:46:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: vyperpit
Originally by: Niivvy
Very Happythsanks for finding a link, tbh i couldnt be arsed looking for one.

the person who thinks we have stop evolving cos dumb people have sex is nuts!!




then look at this stuff if u like linkies

"Scientists are split over the theory that natural selection has come to a standstill in the West. Robin McKie reports "
Linkage

"Modern man is said to have evolved until about 100,000 years ago and then to have stopped evolving. Evolution since that time, it is claimed, has been "cultural and social evolution." Biological evolution is unknown among humans in historical times."


goodle this subject and you will find lots of scientist who say the same thing, man has stoped evolving and it makes sense



HAHAHAHA ehm HAHAHAHAHA and then prehaps some HAHAHAHAHAHA

lets take something obvious and dispence with anything complex. the popultions of Inuits in the Northen polar regions are a maximum of 15K years old acording to population migration trends (google it or look on Wiki or whatever thats what you asked us to do)

Evolution is the predisposition for individuals with superior survivability to pass there advantages to the next generation genetically, Inuits generally have smaller noses than people who live in hot countries why? to lower heat loss thru surface area of an unprotected area of the body that is one repeat ONE of hundreds of variations that can be named in localised human populations. that is Micro evolution for you and within 15K years


Sathana
Caldari
Murder-Death-Kill
Posted - 2006.08.20 01:28:00 - [79]
 

Well, I'm not a scientist, but my general understanding is that species evolve to their surroundings. Human's differ from one another in looks and physical abilities/stature because they live in different environments. On the other hand, human's have been making the environment adapt to them, we still evolve, but more slowly since it's not one of those situations that we either adapt or die.

Hopefully, some of what i said made a lil sense :P I'm tired g'night!

Jaden Haryl
Posted - 2006.08.20 02:38:00 - [80]
 

Edited by: Jaden Haryl on 20/08/2006 02:38:49
Originally by: vyperpit

No i don’t know what the future holds, but my assumptions are correct

The basic fundamental forces, 4 of them, are the only ones known so far, and out of them electromagnetism is the only practical one to use, gravity can be used too, but that is EXTREAMLY unlikely. Can there be other fundamental forces yet undiscovered; sure, would they be suitable, probably not. If there are other fundamental forces, they will be extremely short ranged which would be unpractical for long range communication

And everything i wrote here, its not certain, like you say, there are probably lots of things yet undiscovered, but people can make good assumptions which can and do hold true. you might say something stupid like man once though the speed of sound will not be broken [which isnt true, no one though that, hell they knew bullets passed that speed, but Some assumed that controlled flight might not be possible]

Something isnt possible if it breaks the laws of physics or is totally unpractical, and that’s what im pointing out



You seem awefully sure of the future, unfortunately new discoveries have historically been very surprising and surpassed what was considered to be possible. Again what about quantum pairing? Although currently a theory that cannot yet be utilized for communication, it exibits no force between the paired particles, it function by some yet not understood process. QP may never pan out but perhaps something else again not utlizing one of the 4 forces may be discovered, who are you to say thats all there is? It is also currently held that there is no known way to travel or communicate FTL, do you hold the belief this problem cannot be solved? Do you honestly think we are anywhere near understanding all the laws of physics currently?

Perhaps your a correct in your assumptions, although I for one am not so bold as to speculate there are no other forms of communcation besides EM trasmission or that we as a species have stopped evolving, in fact that seems pretty arrogant.

Oh and BTW people certainly did think it was impossible to go faster than sound(yes bullets did not always exist either), as they thought the world was flat and many other incorrect assumptions before that.

Kaylana Syi
Minmatar
Coreli Corporation
Naraka.
Posted - 2006.08.20 07:27:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Niivvy
Quote:
So... where did you get this time machine of yours that you can make absolute statements on evolution is the difinative proof of our existance?


considering humans look diffrent now to what they did 500 years ago (hight weight stature build) i dont think i need a time machine to assume that in 5 MILLION years we are going to be even more diffrent.




You go back in time or something? Surely you can't be basing your claims off what archeologist 'claim' happened. There is no substantial evidence to say those bones are less evolved humans at all. It is maybe what happpend... and maybe not. Your tone is definative and absolute and you can't assume it becuase nothing can be corroborated without a substantial amount of untestable hypothesis.

Kaylana Syi
Minmatar
Coreli Corporation
Naraka.
Posted - 2006.08.20 07:29:00 - [82]
 

Edited by: Kaylana Syi on 20/08/2006 07:32:13
Originally by: Niivvy
Edited by: Niivvy on 19/08/2006 15:52:12
i guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one but the vast majority of evloutanary scientests are with me on this one.

and BTW you said earlier i got the idea of not being able to communicate with an advanced race from some dumb web site, the persom who put forward this theory was Dr Stephen Hawking. perhaps our greatest mind on the planet today.

its been a fun debate but im not going to go round in circles on it


Scientiests are like doctors... they are practitioners... not the last stop for truth. A scientist can back David Icke's claims of George W. being a reptile bent on global pacification of the human race if they so chose to do so with alarming 'discoveries' and observations and dramatizations like the ones seen on the discovery channel.

Evelyn Lavi
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2006.08.20 07:48:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Kaylana Syi
Edited by: Kaylana Syi on 20/08/2006 07:32:13
Originally by: Niivvy
Edited by: Niivvy on 19/08/2006 15:52:12
i guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one but the vast majority of evloutanary scientests are with me on this one.

and BTW you said earlier i got the idea of not being able to communicate with an advanced race from some dumb web site, the persom who put forward this theory was Dr Stephen Hawking. perhaps our greatest mind on the planet today.

its been a fun debate but im not going to go round in circles on it


Scientiests are like doctors... they are practitioners... not the last stop for truth. A scientist can back David Icke's claims of George W. being a reptile bent on global pacification of the human race if they so chose to do so with alarming 'discoveries' and observations and dramatizations like the ones seen on the discovery channel.


It always makes me wary when someone tosses the word "truth" around.

Science is a discipline, where observable and demonstratable facts are used to draw conclusions, called theories. Theory is a word that is badly misused, but the original definition of a theory was not a "guess," but a system of explanation that best fits the known facts of the time. Science's greatest strength is its ability to adapt and to suit new data as it becomes available.

I'd assume your "last stop for truth" is the invisible deity of your choice. Right? Rolling Eyes

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Posted - 2006.08.20 08:43:00 - [84]
 

There's enough leet & mad cappers to go around, plenty of subhuman specimens already.

Karo Kezo
Posted - 2006.08.20 08:43:00 - [85]
 

ok
we need a great new war between Empires, a few betrayals during the war, and at the brink of destruction of a race, a new alien threat to come bashing in.

But first, we need to remove the lag unless we use it as safety precaution against new subscribers (and some of the old ones).

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Posted - 2006.08.20 08:47:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Karo Kezo
ok
we need a great new war between Empires, a few betrayals during the war, and at the brink of destruction of a race, a new alien threat to come bashing in.

But first, we need to remove the lag unless we use it as safety precaution against new subscribers (and some of the old ones).


You cannot remove the lag, the aliens live in that dimension, the lagoliers. That crunching sound you get on the foreverload, that's them eating away at your ship.

Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
Posted - 2006.08.20 09:49:00 - [87]
 

“There is no substantial evidence to say those bones are less evolved humans at all. It is maybe what happpend... and maybe not. Your tone is definative and absolute and you can't assume it becuase nothing can be corroborated without a substantial amount of untestable hypothesis.”
How can you say no substantial evidence when we still have tons of bones from 500 years ago and longer? The bone structure is different from now and not in just one or to body but most if not all of them. If the bone skull structure is different then the face is different so they look different.

The average skull now has a vault height of the skull at 20% bigger then 500years ago. But today’s skulls have less prominent features with higher foreheads and distance measured from the eyes to the top of the skull is a lot bigger now. All that is substantial evidence that can be checked and repeated due to the amount of body’s still left from that time frame.



“You go back in time or something? Surely you can't be basing your claims off what archeologist 'claim' happened.”
There is no need to go back in time as the body’s are still around today. So we can see what people used to look like and how we have evolved from back then.

Kaylana Syi
Minmatar
Coreli Corporation
Naraka.
Posted - 2006.08.20 11:06:00 - [88]
 

Edited by: Kaylana Syi on 20/08/2006 11:12:49
Originally by: Evelyn Lavi
I'd assume your "last stop for truth" is the invisible deity of your choice. Right? Rolling Eyes


Way to go... you have used an argument against me and at the same time used the same argument to back your view point.

Science is the study of the universe and any knowledge gained is only a partial understanding. 'The Truth' I refer to is the things that are unseen and undiscovered that would mock scientific fact if they were uncovered. New data that can disprove or expand is discovered all the time.

The truth of the matter is unless you were alive 500 years ago you have absolutely no factual claims to what human life was except for looks which could easily still be the same today for a particular group of people. It is a best guess scenario with the understanding you have at the moment. You don't have to try and discredit my words by bring a deity into this coversation. It is merely logic I am rabbling about. Find that and you may find the message behind my words that so obviously offended you. Rolling Eyes

Evelyn Lavi
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2006.08.20 12:16:00 - [89]
 

Edited by: Evelyn Lavi on 20/08/2006 12:17:53
Originally by: Kaylana Syi
Edited by: Kaylana Syi on 20/08/2006 11:12:49
Originally by: Evelyn Lavi
I'd assume your "last stop for truth" is the invisible deity of your choice. Right? Rolling Eyes


Way to go... you have used an argument against me and at the same time used the same argument to back your view point.

Science is the study of the universe and any knowledge gained is only a partial understanding. 'The Truth' I refer to is the things that are unseen and undiscovered that would mock scientific fact if they were uncovered. New data that can disprove or expand is discovered all the time.

The truth of the matter is unless you were alive 500 years ago you have absolutely no factual claims to what human life was except for looks which could easily still be the same today for a particular group of people. It is a best guess scenario with the understanding you have at the moment. You don't have to try and discredit my words by bring a deity into this coversation. It is merely logic I am rabbling about. Find that and you may find the message behind my words that so obviously offended you. Rolling Eyes


I beg to differ.

First off, the "the universe is vast and too complex to understand" business is well and good, until you realize who it is that is making the effort of at least TRYING to figure it out.

The scientific method, which you seem to scoff at, is the best logical tool we have at the moment, to increase our understanding of the world around us. Instead of sneering at it when it doesn't suit the worldview you believe in, consider this:

There is no better method to date. What would you propose? Criticism without a viable alternative is simply being an ass. Laughing

Furthermore, what does this "great mystery of the universe" stuff have to do with human evolution? We have demonstratable facts, backed up by evidence (human remains going back through the ages, demonstrating trends of development and change). I really don't see anything debatable here, unless you're one of those hardliners that wants to teach my kids that the world is 6000 years old and that God placed dinosaur fossils in the ground to "test our faith." Laughing

Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
Posted - 2006.08.20 14:24:00 - [90]
 

”The truth of the matter is unless you were alive 500 years ago you have absolutely no factual claims to what human life was except for looks which could easily still be the same today for a particular group of people.”
We are not on about what life was like back then. We are on about evolution and how we have changed over time. Evolution is something you can clearly see and you can clearly see how we have changed. You don’t have to live 500 years ago to have factual claims on what humans looked like back then.

You say looks could easily be the same back then as today. Well the facts don’t say that. Scientists didn’t just look at 1 skull they looked at lots from various groups and places. None of them matched today’s skulls. The simple fact is the skulls are different then today so evolution took place and we changed over time.



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only