PDA

View Full Version : Could a new species on earth menace us?



honeybear
April 9th, 2011, 06:52 AM
I watched yesterday Dreamcatcher ; during the night I have dreamed about sort of big fishes coming out of the sea, and doing bad, being a menace... :( :):) Anyway, there are lot of movies of horror or other:

The mist
Alone in dark
...
from other planets: Independence day, AVP, ... Robotech ;)
from machines: Terminator, ...

;):P

I was thinking that maybe the species could evolve on earth and on day, take control... monkeys (like in another movie), fishes (which could be more intelligent and creative than humans, e.g. dolphins, ... )

gsmanners
April 9th, 2011, 06:57 AM
They'd have to defeat our evil overlords first.

LowSky
April 9th, 2011, 06:59 AM
dolphins are mammals

the biggest threats are viruses and bacteria.

Philsoki
April 9th, 2011, 07:05 AM
dolphins are mammals

the biggest threats are viruses and bacteria.
Or the next stage of human evolution that will see to it we're wiped out!

But the chances of that are a lot less likely than being killed of by some sort of super virus. :(

handy
April 9th, 2011, 07:11 AM
dolphins are mammals

the biggest threats are viruses and bacteria.

+1

Many scientists consider such a threat to be the most likely form of apocalypse that could render humanity extinct or all but extinct.

I'm using the following definition of apocalypse:

any universal or widespread destruction or disaster: the apocalypse of nuclear war.

koleoptero
April 9th, 2011, 11:19 AM
We're all going to die of malnutrition. The poor from having not enough food and the rich from eating too much junk.

We're doing an excellent job menacing ourselves, we don't need any help from a new species/aliens/natural catastrophes.

mips
April 9th, 2011, 11:46 AM
The biggest menace on this planet is us.

handy
April 9th, 2011, 11:53 AM
The biggest menace on this planet is us.

There are definitions of a virus that humanity fits all too well...

NCLI
April 9th, 2011, 11:55 AM
There are definitions of a virus that humanity fits all too well...

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.

- Smith

Philsoki
April 9th, 2011, 11:56 AM
There are definitions of a virus that humanity fits all too well...
I knew it! You ARE agent Smith.:P

Philsoki
April 9th, 2011, 12:01 PM
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.

- Smith
You're psychic. You beat me by like one millisecond.:o

NCLI
April 9th, 2011, 12:06 PM
You're psychic. You beat me by like one millisecond.:o

Muhahahaha!!! :D

No, seriosuly, that was freaky. Can you see me from where you are!? 8-[

Philsoki
April 9th, 2011, 12:16 PM
Muhahahaha!!! :D

No, seriosuly, that was freaky. Can you see me from where you are!? 8-[
He's bugged!

3Miro
April 9th, 2011, 12:32 PM
Evolution is way too slow for another species to go after us as in a horror movie.

Viruses can kill many people, although ultimately it is incredibly unlikely that a single virus can kill all people. The best they can do is destroy civilization, which in its own turn can drive us to slow extinction.

We evolve as we speak, just very slowly. It is possible that in another 250,000 our descendants would become something very different from us. If this were to happen, the humans would become "extinct", although that also has nothing to do with horror movies.

(note, X-Men is a very bad example of evolution, this is not how things work at all)

NCLI
April 9th, 2011, 12:33 PM
evolution is way too slow for another species to go after us as in a horror movie.

Viruses can kill many people, although ultimately it is incredibly unlikely that a single virus can kill all people. The best they can do is destroy civilization, which in its own turn can drive us to slow extinction.

We evolve as we speak, just very slowly. It is possible that in another 250,000 our descendants would become something very different from us. If this were to happen, the humans would become "extinct", although that also has nothing to do with horror movies.

(note, x-men is a very bad example of evolution, this is not how things work at all)
+1

gsmanners
April 9th, 2011, 04:33 PM
We're slowly turning into those people from Wall-E. :D

uRock
April 9th, 2011, 04:37 PM
I watched yesterday Dreamcatcher

Did you ask for your 2 hours back? I was disappointed when I read the book, but the movie was even more painful. Stephen King was a much better writer prior to his accident.

SSDD

el_koraco
April 9th, 2011, 04:58 PM
only if we gave them root permission.

Sporkman
April 9th, 2011, 06:45 PM
only if we gave them root permission.

True - assuming there are no vulnerabilities that could be exploited for privilege escalation or denial of service.

juancarlospaco
April 9th, 2011, 06:56 PM
sort of big fishes coming out of the sea, and doing bad, being a menace...

That already happend a loo0o0o0ong time ago...
Think

Lightstar
April 9th, 2011, 08:12 PM
If we came from monkeys and evolution was a normal thing, there would be no monkeys.

I think if a new species came, it would be from a different planet.

I think it would be good for humans to stop being on top of the food chain, it would teach us some values about life and this planet that we have forgotten.

wmcbrine
April 9th, 2011, 08:30 PM
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environmentB.S. Every mammal (and every other kind of animal, as well as other organisms) on this planet grabs whatever it can for itself. The "balance of nature" is just what you get as a result -- and it's a very temporary situation. If you could see the long view, at scales far longer than a human lifetime, nature wouldn't look balanced at all. Populations boom and crash. Species go extinct, new ones emerge. Over and over, on and on.

Not that I want to be dismissive of our current predicament; far from it. Right now, we're in the middle of the greatest mass extinction in 65 million years, and it's caused by humans, and I think that's a bad thing. The problem is that humans are just too good at doing what comes naturally: grabbing everything for themselves. But we're also the only species with the ability to see that bigger picture, and reign ourselves in accordingly. If only we would.

As to the title question, viruses and bacteria are basically the only things that can evolve fast enough to become threats to us. Macroscopic life has no chance; our cultural adaptation far outpaces its evolution.


If we came from monkeys and evolution was a normal thing, there would be no monkeys.Lightstar, you really should learn more about evolution before you spout such nonsense. I know it's a popular creationist talking point, but it makes no sense at all. That's just not how evolution works.

Sporkman
April 9th, 2011, 08:34 PM
If we came from monkeys and evolution was a normal thing, there would be no monkeys.


If that were true, then Debian & Ubuntu would not coexist - there would be only Ubuntu.

Lightstar
April 9th, 2011, 08:49 PM
Lightstar, you really should learn more about evolution before you spout such nonsense. I know it's a popular creationist talking point, but it makes no sense at all. That's just not how evolution works.

I'm not into creationism, that's what my goats tell me. And if a tree fell into a book, the rock would read not only a roman but also climb what the crab had said.

On another note, I believe in evolution, but it takes a huge cataclysm, whether intended or by accident, to create a big change in molecular chemistry. I don't believe we come from monkeys, I don't see how there could be a huge change in only one specie out of the 2 million+ species on earth. Yes some developed skills and maybe new or changed organs, but nothing explains the huge gap between humans and the rest. Due to that belief I have a feeling we aren't from monkeys. We started as humans, and we are still as humans. Not so much evolution except that of the brain which simply developed from practicing that muscle.

All that to support my first post. If there was a new specie, it would be from a different place and not an evolution.

Threads like this are personal opinions. Respect it even if you disagree.
Spouting nonsense.. pfft


If that were true, then Debian & Ubuntu would not coexist - there would be only Ubuntu.
That has nothing to do with the thread nor my post which talks about living beings.

NightwishFan
April 9th, 2011, 08:49 PM
B.S.
You dare disagree with Hugo Weaving? :lolflag:


If that were true, then Debian & Ubuntu would not coexist - there would be only Ubuntu.
Perfect way to put it.

honeybear
April 9th, 2011, 10:03 PM
If we came from monkeys and evolution was a normal thing, there would be no monkeys.

I think if a new species came, it would be from a different planet.

I think it would be good for humans to stop being on top of the food chain, it would teach us some values about life and this planet that we have forgotten.

I think it would come from the sea or amazonia, where there are thousand of species that humans will never have the chance to count them. We havent finish discovering new species in those wild regions on earth. there was some nice bbc documentary about those unknown lands on earth...


As to the title question, viruses and bacteria are basically the only things that can evolve fast enough to become threats to us. Macroscopic life has no chance; our cultural adaptation far outpaces its evolution. indeed
And are we prepared for that? If an pandemy occurs, are we ready to move on the moon or to live in space for a while, until the dangerous viruses on earth get better...? there was a movie like that with will smith, but, man why they did not think about moving some of humans on the moon ? there are solar power energy there that could be installed, and bringing oxygen could be made too with high-tech devices.

cgroza
April 9th, 2011, 10:09 PM
Evolution is way too slow for another species to go after us as in a horror movie.

Viruses can kill many people, although ultimately it is incredibly unlikely that a single virus can kill all people. The best they can do is destroy civilization, which in its own turn can drive us to slow extinction.

We evolve as we speak, just very slowly. It is possible that in another 250,000 our descendants would become something very different from us. If this were to happen, the humans would become "extinct", although that also has nothing to do with horror movies.

(note, X-Men is a very bad example of evolution, this is not how things work at all)
Evolution is not a FACT!

uRock
April 9th, 2011, 10:11 PM
Evolution is not a FACT!

Prove it.

cgroza
April 9th, 2011, 10:13 PM
Prove it.
You prove it is not a fact. Creationists were here before evolutionists, it is to them to fight their place.
It is just a theory that started in ages were science was very limited. It is like building on the beliefs of the people who thought the world is flat.

mips
April 9th, 2011, 10:17 PM
Evolution is not a FACT!

I could easily prove that it is fact.

Let's have a look at the human genome project and tracing ancestry.

Initially we all looked like the Khoisan, we evolved over time to now look like people in Asia, Europe and the Americas. The scientific proof is there for all to see via DNA markers.

Science is a wonderful thing.

mips
April 9th, 2011, 10:19 PM
You prove it is not a fact.

You can't prove a negative ](*,)

cgroza
April 9th, 2011, 10:21 PM
If that were true, then Debian & Ubuntu would not coexist - there would be only Ubuntu.
I am sorry, whats the relation to this thread?

cgroza
April 9th, 2011, 10:22 PM
You can't prove a negative ](*,)
Other people who surpass my knowledge have better arguments than I do, just google it.

cgroza
April 9th, 2011, 10:23 PM
I could easily prove that it is fact.

Let's have a look at the human genome project and tracing ancestry.

Initially we all looked like the Khoisan, we evolved over time to now look like people in Asia, Europe and the Americas. The scientific proof is there for all to see via DNA markers.

Science is a wonderful thing.
That prooves the same creator to me.

3Miro
April 9th, 2011, 10:41 PM
Evolutions as: "Change in species over time" is a FACT! DNA is was the last piece of the puzzle that proves the common ancestry of species.

The "Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection" is the best explanation that we have. So far, it passes every test that we trow at it. Unless we see something like a half-dog half-cat or half-human half-gorilla, it Darwin's theory will remain being the best explanation.

2 million of years ago, there was a type of a monkey that was like no other type today. At some point of time, those monkeys split into two groups that started living separately and would no longer interbreed. One group kept living mostly on threes and the other group came to the ground, started using more and more tools, eventually mastered fire and so on. Since those two groups were living such different lives, over the next 2 million years, they gradually grew more and more distinct and today we have both Chimps and Humans. In the mean time, all other species were evolving too, some faster some slower.

Here is a page where people have explained this way better than I can:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

3Miro
April 9th, 2011, 10:44 PM
I am sorry, whats the relation to this thread?

Software evolves much in the same was as species (OK not entirely the same way, but very similar). Users of one distribution an split up and start making their own systems, initially those would be very similar since they both derive from the common ancestor, but gradually they become more and more distinct.

Susa and Slackware share common ancestry, but they no longer share packages.

This is not exactly analogous to biological evolution, but it is close.

cgroza
April 9th, 2011, 10:46 PM
Evolutions as: "Change in species over time" is a FACT! DNA is was the last piece of the puzzle that proves the common ancestry of species.

The "Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection" is the best explanation that we have. So far, it passes every test that we trow at it. Unless we see something like a half-dog half-cat or half-human half-gorilla, it Darwin's theory will remain being the best explanation.

2 million of years ago, there was a type of a monkey that was like no other type today. At some point of time, those monkeys split into two groups that started living separately and would no longer interbreed. One group kept living mostly on threes and the other group came to the ground, started using more and more tools, eventually mastered fire and so on. Since those two groups were living such different lives, over the next 2 million years, they gradually grew more and more distinct and today we have both Chimps and Humans. In the mean time, all other species were evolving too, some faster some slower.

Here is a page where people have explained this way better than I can:

http://www.talkorigins.org/
Gravity is a fact, but not evolution, evolution is a theory which is the result of human mind, which often it thinks wrong.
I find attributing all the world and my existence to a simple accident and evolution absurd. When you say that evolution is true, you also say that everything is useless and we are coming from nowhere and going nowhere. If we all kill ourselves, it would make no difference, because sure, another accident will happen and another intelligent species will evolve on tis earth someday.

cgroza
April 9th, 2011, 10:46 PM
Software evolves much in the same was as species (OK not entirely the same way, but very similar). Users of one distribution an split up and start making their own systems, initially those would be very similar since they both derive from the common ancestor, but gradually they become more and more distinct.

Susa and Slackware share common ancestry, but they no longer share packages.

This is not exactly analogous to biological evolution, but it is close.
A close analogy, but not the right one.

mips
April 9th, 2011, 10:47 PM
That prooves the same creator to me.

I see we have a Crocoduck mindset.

inobe
April 9th, 2011, 10:52 PM
There are definitions of a virus that humanity fits all too well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Na9-jV_OJI&feature=related

http://maxcdn.fooyoh.com/files/attach/images/591/528/247/004/agent-smith.jpg

this must be the matrix:o

cgroza
April 9th, 2011, 10:52 PM
These things make me believe evolution is just a theory:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

NightwishFan
April 9th, 2011, 10:55 PM
A close analogy, but not the right one.

You seem to throw around a lot of opinion as fact..

cgroza
April 9th, 2011, 10:57 PM
You seem to throw around a lot of opinion as fact..
So are others.

NightwishFan
April 9th, 2011, 10:58 PM
So are others.

Fair enough.

3Miro
April 9th, 2011, 11:07 PM
Gravity is a fact, but not evolution, evolution is a theory which is the result of human mind, which often it thinks wrong.
I find attributing all the world and my existence to a simple accident and evolution absurd. When you say that evolution is true, you also say that everything is useless and we are coming from nowhere and going nowhere. If we all kill ourselves, it would make no difference, because sure, another accident will happen and another intelligent species will evolve on tis earth someday.

As I explained, there are two things called evolution, the Fact and the Theory explaining that fact. Same with gravity, attractive force between objects is a fact, theory of gravity (inverse distance square law or curved space-time) is the best explanation that we have on how that works.

Evolution -> we can all kill ourselves???? Does not compute!

cgroza
April 9th, 2011, 11:21 PM
Evolution and these arguments: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1 don't compute also.
Lets face it, there are way too many flaws to be able to call it an upper case FACT!

cgroza
April 9th, 2011, 11:22 PM
As I explained, there are two things called evolution, the Fact and the Theory explaining that fact. Same with gravity, attractive force between objects is a fact, theory of gravity (inverse distance square law or curved space-time) is the best explanation that we have on how that works.

Evolution -> we can all kill ourselves???? Does not compute!
I meant, evolution makes me think we have no reason to live.

NightwishFan
April 9th, 2011, 11:25 PM
I meant, evolution makes me think we have no reason to live.

A single master reason? I can not think of any. I have plenty right in front of my eyes every day though. Evolution or creation notwithstanding.




But, as you well know, appearances can be deceiving, which brings me back to the reason why we're here. We're not here because we're free. We're here because we're not free. There is no escaping reason; no denying purpose. Because as we both know, without purpose, we would not exist.
It is purpose that created us. Purpose that connects us. Purpose that pulls us. That guides us. That drives us. It is purpose that defines us. Purpose that binds us. We are here because of you, Mr Anderson. We're here to take from you what you tried to take from us. Purpose.

cgroza
April 9th, 2011, 11:29 PM
A single master reason? I can not think of any. I have plenty right in front of my eyes every day though. Evolution or creation notwithstanding.
After I die, thats it? For what?

koleoptero
April 9th, 2011, 11:39 PM
After I die, thats it? For what?

For the fun of it.

3Miro
April 9th, 2011, 11:40 PM
I meant, evolution makes me think we have no reason to live.

I still don't follow. What does evolution have to do with you having a reason to live? You make your own reason to live, you decide what you want to do with your life, I don't see how evolution factors in this at all.

NightwishFan
April 9th, 2011, 11:42 PM
After I die, thats it? For what?

I am not going to argue this with you. When things get too deep I take my leave.

Johnsie
April 9th, 2011, 11:43 PM
I think our own species already menaces us to a point where extinction is inevitible. Read some of the user comments on fox news articles and you will see that part of our species is more than a little dangerous. (People with "lets just nuke 'em" mentality). We have caused so much damage to the world in which we live and even developed weapons capable of destroying our whole planet! Either we will use up all the worlds resources, blow each other up or we will poison our environment to a point where people can't survive. The main cause in all cases, greed.

d3v1150m471c
April 9th, 2011, 11:46 PM
that's if humanity doesn't kill everything off while it's killing itself. now, a new strain of disease we cannot treat very well could wipe out humanity. just google mrsa while you're at it.

3Miro
April 9th, 2011, 11:49 PM
that's if humanity doesn't kill everything off while it's killing itself. now, a new strain of disease we cannot treat very well could wipe out humanity. just google mrsa while you're at it.

A disease can kill most of us, however, the chance of it killing all of us, is virtually null. A disease can destroy human civilization, but not humankind.

Nukes on the other hand ... those can destroy absolutely everything.

NCLI
April 10th, 2011, 02:15 AM
If we came from monkeys and evolution was a normal thing, there would be no monkeys.

I think if a new species came, it would be from a different planet.

I think it would be good for humans to stop being on top of the food chain, it would teach us some values about life and this planet that we have forgotten.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Oh my god that was fu- What, you're being serious!?

*sigh* Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0F4FBLJRE).

I'm not into creationism, that's what my goats tell me. And if a tree fell into a book, the rock would read not only a roman but also climb what the crab had said.

On another note, I believe in evolution, but it takes a huge cataclysm, whether intended or by accident, to create a big change in molecular chemistry. I don't believe we come from monkeys, I don't see how there could be a huge change in only one specie out of the 2 million+ species on earth. Yes some developed skills and maybe new or changed organs, but nothing explains the huge gap between humans and the rest. Due to that belief I have a feeling we aren't from monkeys. We started as humans, and we are still as humans. Not so much evolution except that of the brain which simply developed from practicing that muscle.
So you accept that natural selection can cause changes to the body? Well, congratulations, you've just accepted the theory of evolution by natural selection! Small changes, accumulating over huge amounts of time, is the reasons why we are like we are today.

Threads like this are personal opinions. Respect it even if you disagree.
Spouting nonsense.. pfft
Fortunately, this is not just my personal opinion, it is a scientifically tested theory which has proven to be just as dependable as the theory of gravity.

Evolution is not a FACT!
Evolution is a fact, evolution by natural selection is a theory, but it's the best we've got, and has yet to be disproven, just like the theory of gravity.

You prove it is not a fact. Creationists were here before evolutionists, it is to them to fight their place.
It is just a theory that started in ages were science was very limited. It is like building on the beliefs of the people who thought the world is flat.
Yes, it started a long time ago, but you know what? It holds up! As opposed to creationism, which was laughed out of the courtroom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVVDeIKCCn8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVVDeIKCCn8) when trying to convince a judge that the theory is scientifically valid.

Other people who surpass my knowledge have better arguments than I do, just google it.
I have, it all looks like old, disproven crap to me.

That prooves the same creator to me.
You really don't understand basic high school biology, do you?


Gravity is a fact, but not evolution, evolution is a theory which is the result of human mind, which often it thinks wrong.
Gravity is a theory as well, and we used that to send men in orbit around the earth, just like we use the theory of evolution to make medicine which you have no doubt used.


I find attributing all the world and my existence to a simple accident and evolution absurd. When you say that evolution is true, you also say that everything is useless and we are coming from nowhere and going nowhere. If we all kill ourselves, it would make no difference, because sure, another accident will happen and another intelligent species will evolve on tis earth someday.
Sure. What does this have to do with whether it's true or not? Something being true has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you want it to be true. One child dies of hunger every five seconds. I don't like that, yet it is true.

These things make me believe evolution is just a theory:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1
I'll address those then. By the way, do you know what a scientific theory is? I don't think you do, honestly. Read up here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory).


Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong
There are three excellent explanations as to how this may have happened. All of them can be true. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flight#Theories)

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong
You expect scientists to find fossils of every single transitional stage of every single type of animal on this planet? That's never going to happen.

What we do have is an incredibly complete fossil record, so I'd like you to address why we never find for instance poodle fossils beneath trilobytes, if evolution is false.

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong
The single-celled organisms we have today are quite advanced, yes. BECAUSE THEY HAVE EVOLVED. This does not mean that their can't have been very simple single-celled organisms in the past.

Besides, this is an argument againts abiogenesis, not evolution. Independent theories. Evolution is theoretically compatible with a creator god who started the process(Though this presents different problems), abiogenesis is not.


Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong
This is just plain BS. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the mother chinging her own chromosones. it has to do with random mutations which may or may not provide an advantage. I really don't see how this is relevant.


Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong
DNA can check itself for damage, certainly. However, mutations isn't damage. Everyone is born with slightly mutated DNA; but since this is normal DNA to your body, there is nothing for it to fix.



Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong
The second law of thermodynamics deals with the loss of energy, not complexity. It is comepletely irrelevant. Also, the earth is not a closed system, we receive energy from the sun.


Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

We actually have a recent example (http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm) of this being proven to have taken place, as well as proving our close relation to other primates.


Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong
This, again, has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. This is physics.

There are, however, several excellent theories on the matter.


Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong
THIS IS ABOUT ABIOGENESIS. Have creationists really run out of arguments against evolution already??

Anyway, Mars has yet to be properly explored t all, we've only taken small samples from the surface. Perhaps we'll find something once we can get some decent palaeontologists up there. Neither of the rovers were equipped to search for fossils or anything like that.

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong
ABIOGENESIS, NOT EVOLUTION!!


Have you heard about the speed of light? Well, this limits radio waves as well. Therefore, the further away a planet is from us, the longer it would take for those signals to reach us. Also, even if life existed on no other planets(Unlikely, as we have found bacterium fossils in asteriods (http://www.seonode.com/blog/scientist-at-nasa-finds-evidence-of-alien-life-on-meteorite/)), it would still not disprove evolution, nor abiogenesis, just prove that it is extremely rare.

Evolution and these arguments: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1 don't compute also.

Lets face it, there are way too many flaws to be able to call it an upper case FACT!
What flaws? I've just been able to dismiss all of them after a tiny bit of googling. Something you really ought to have done, since plenty of people have done (http://www.rationalresponders.com/bible_life_ministries_evolution) the same thing (http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=262702360070&topic=17316) I just did (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/need-help-debunking-t19077.html).

I meant, evolution makes me think we have no reason to live.
And that makes it untrue? No.

After I die, thats it? For what?
For whatever you want it to be. It's your life, try living it that way instead of depending on the big sky daddy to decide for you.

A disease can kill most of us, however, the chance of it killing all of us, is virtually null. A disease can destroy human civilization, but not humankind.

Nukes on the other hand ... those can destroy absolutely everything.Nah, not cockroaches. There will be life after World War III, but I doubt it will be very intelligent.

Old_Grey_Wolf
April 10th, 2011, 02:23 AM
This thread was about a question, "Could a new species on earth menace us?"

The thread has become a debate between creationism and evolution.

The original question didn't ask how the new species came to be on earth.

kevin11951
April 10th, 2011, 02:30 AM
There will be life after World War III, but I doubt it will be very intelligent.

If there is a WW III, that proves life is already not very intelligent... ;)

kevin11951
April 10th, 2011, 02:34 AM
I just want to note for the record, Evolution is real... I never knew there were intelligent people who tried to dispute that. :(

NCLI
April 10th, 2011, 02:37 AM
This thread was about a question, "Could a new species on earth menace us?"

The thread has become a debate between creationism and evolution.

The original question didn't ask how the new species came to be on earth.
I am aware of that, but I cannot see so much ignorance in one place and leave it be.

If there is a WW III, that proves life is already not very intelligent... ;)
Point.

I just want to note for the record, Evolution is real... I never knew there were intelligent people who tried to dispute that. :(
Intelligent people can be misinformed and ignorant, just like not so smart people can be well informed and knowledgeable.

Old_Grey_Wolf
April 10th, 2011, 02:47 AM
In about the year 1350 there was the "Black Death". It is thought to have been an outbreak of bubonic plague caused by a bacterium. It was a new bacterium that is estimated to have killed between 30% to 60% of Europe's population. It is believed that it started in China and spread to the west.

It was a menace to humans; however, it did not make us extinct.

Humans have an intellect that allows us to solve these problems whereas lesser animals do not.

We just need to use it.

Dustin2128
April 10th, 2011, 04:56 AM
Thanks to NCLI for explaining the many ways in which that forum thread was wrong, saving me the trouble. Anyway, I don't think it's really possible to end the human species short of destroying the planet. People would survive a nuclear war, and the biodiversity of a population of 7 billion helps protect against humanity ending pandemics. A meteor strike might get close, but you'd always have some holdouts living in bunkers, and with geothermal power and a seed bank, they could survive indefinitely. Most likely a prolonged Gamma Ray Burst would be one the only ways to do it.

NCLI
April 10th, 2011, 05:06 AM
Thanks to NCLI for explaining the many ways in which that forum thread was wrong, saving me the trouble. Anyway, I don't think it's really possible to end the human species short of destroying the planet. People would survive a nuclear war, and the biodiversity of a population of 7 billion helps protect against humanity ending pandemics. A meteor strike might get close, but you'd always have some holdouts living in bunkers, and with geothermal power and a seed bank, they could survive indefinitely. Most likely a prolonged Gamma Ray Burst would be one the only ways to do it.
What's really sad is that it wasn't really much trouble at all. Lots of typing, sure, but the things I wrote all stem from my high school education, and no more than 10 minutes on Google.

Come on people, you're better than this!

gsmanners
April 10th, 2011, 06:00 AM
Fortunately, this is not just my personal opinion, it is a scientifically tested theory which has proven to be just as dependable as the theory of gravity.

I'd love to hear your "theory" of gravity. Go ahead and enlighten us. After all, it is "dependable" so it must be really easy to explain. :popcorn:

Philsoki
April 10th, 2011, 06:05 AM
I'd love to hear your "theory" of gravity. Go ahead and enlighten us. After all, it is "dependable" so it must be really easy to explain. :popcorn:
Wikipedia does that for us, man.:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_gravity

NCLI
April 10th, 2011, 06:06 AM
I'd love to hear your "theory" of gravity. Go ahead and enlighten us. After all, it is "dependable" so it must be really easy to explain. :popcorn:
The theory of gravitiy? Well, it's quite simple really: Matter attracts matter. The heavier something is, the more other things will be drawn towards it.

General Relativity explains more about how this works(By curving space-time), but it all breaks down when we into sizes so small that they're governed by quantum mechanics, which I am in no way knowledgeable enough to start talking about.

Anyway, feel free to read about the theory of gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_gravity) over at Wikipedia, I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.

And yes, it is very dependable. If we didn't have the theory of gravity, we would never have been able to put a man on the moon(Or launch a space station, if you're one of those conspiracy nuts who think NASA faked the lunar expedition), and if we didn't have the theory of evolution, we wouldn't be able to treat diseases as efficiently as we can today.

In the mean time, what has the hypothesis called intelligent design(creationism) given us?

uRock
April 10th, 2011, 06:07 AM
I'd love to hear your "theory" of gravity. Go ahead and enlighten us. After all, it is "dependable" so it must be really easy to explain. :popcorn:

Physics 101. Gravity is a very simple bit of math. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
g = 9.81 m/s^(2) = 32.2 ft/s^(2)

gsmanners
April 10th, 2011, 06:08 AM
Yeah, right. You do realize that wiki doesn't settle the matter so conveniently as you imply?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_gravity#Recent_alternative_theories

Philsoki
April 10th, 2011, 06:15 AM
Yeah, right. You do realize that wiki doesn't settle the matter so conveniently as you imply?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_gravity#Recent_alternative_theories
I'm not a physicist, but it is the current "accepted" theory for gravity. I wasn't trying to debate you, I was just answering the implied question "I'd love to hear your theory of gravity."

I haven't even read through the thread, and I don't really care to. Are you a science major or something, or just follow popular science?

NCLI
April 10th, 2011, 06:18 AM
Yeah, right. You do realize that wiki doesn't settle the matter so conveniently as you imply?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_gravity#Recent_alternative_theories

Science constantly evolves and changes as we discover more about the universe, that is very true. However, what I described is a model that works, and that is what makes it a theory. It works every single time we use it(As long as we don't head into quantum territory, we have different models for that), and until someone comes up with something that gives us better results, it's as close as we get to "truth" right now.

Also, please try to realise the science has never claimed to know absolute truth. Science only claims to offer the best explanation we have, which provides a good, demonstrable model we can use to make accurate predictions about the universe, and it does that very well.

And again, on the other hand, what has the lovely hypothesis of intelligent design given us? Have they come up with any vaccines based on it recently?

Also, do you claim to have a better model for how gravitation works? Intelligent falling perhaps?


I haven't even read through the thread, and I don't really care to. Are you a science major or something, or just follow popular science?
I think he follows popular ignorance, if anything.

uRock
April 10th, 2011, 06:22 AM
Yeah, right. You do realize that wiki doesn't settle the matter so conveniently as you imply?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_gravity#Recent_alternative_theories

I have tested the theory and found the math from Newton's law to be very accurate.

The laws of theory have proven themselves, when you take into account that the basic math was used to place satellites into orbit of other planets. If the math had'fe been wrong, then the satellites would have missed the orbit or slammed into the planet in which it was sent to orbit.

Here is another link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

gsmanners
April 10th, 2011, 06:30 AM
I have tested the theory and found the math from Newton's law to be very accurate.

The laws of theory have proven themselves, when you take into account that the basic math was used to place satellites into orbit of other planets. If the math had'fe been wrong, then the satellites would have missed the orbit or slammed into the planet in which it was sent to orbit.

Here is another link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

Sure, I agree mostly with Newton's laws of motion. I just don't care for the prevailing so-called theory of relativity. That makes about as much sense as saying Shakespeare was some grain-hoarding commoner from Stratford, is all. It isn't easy to explain, even if (or especially if) you accept relativity as gospel truth (which I highly doubt).

As for your silly foray into "laws of theory," and your satellites lending credence to your theories, I don't think the wiki supports that. Somehow, I highly doubt a real rocket scientist actually depends on relativity as much as you seem to think they do.

uRock
April 10th, 2011, 06:35 AM
Sure, I agree mostly with Newton's laws of motion. I just don't care for the prevailing so-called theory of relativity. That makes about as much sense as saying Shakespeare was some grain-hoarding commoner from Stratford, is all. It isn't easy to explain, even if (or especially if) you accept relativity as gospel truth (which I highly doubt).

As for your silly foray into "laws of theory," and your satellites lending credence to your theories, I don't think the wiki supports that. Somehow, I highly doubt a real rocket scientist actually depends on relativity as much as you seem to think they do.
I don't read wikis. I link them for folks who can't pick up a book. If you think I am going to sit here and copy my physics books, then you've gone mad.

Philsoki
April 10th, 2011, 06:37 AM
Somehow, I highly doubt a real rocket scientist actually depends on relativity as much as you seem to think they do.
"Rocket Scientist" is a pseudo term. Also, why do you doubt that? Actually, what's your point, what are you getting at? Will I know if I read the thread?:p


As for your silly foray into "laws of theory," and your satellites lending credence to your theories, I don't think the wiki supports that.
Guess there's only one way to find out...

inobe
April 10th, 2011, 06:38 AM
i think hobbit skulls were dated somewhere around 30,000 years old, they fabricated and used stone tools for cutting.

the only thing that borks everyone's theories, is they cannot rule out these beings as human.

--------------------------------------------

on topic

i assure you, humans or whatever other menace will not be responsible for human extinction.

this planet will end life before anything else would.

we are on a tiny planet within a solar system, in a galaxy, microscopic to the universe.

we aren't special.

NCLI
April 10th, 2011, 06:46 AM
Sure, I agree mostly with Newton's laws of motion. I just don't care for the prevailing so-called theory of relativity. That makes about as much sense as saying Shakespeare was some grain-hoarding commoner from Stratford, is all. It isn't easy to explain, even if (or especially if) you accept relativity as gospel truth (which I highly doubt).

As for your silly foray into "laws of theory," and your satellites lending credence to your theories, I don't think the wiki supports that. Somehow, I highly doubt a real rocket scientist actually depends on relativity as much as you seem to think they do.
Get back in high school, kid. And if you're not a kid, this is just plain sad.

Chronon
April 10th, 2011, 07:02 AM
Sure, I agree mostly with Newton's laws of motion. I just don't care for the prevailing so-called theory of relativity. That makes about as much sense as saying Shakespeare was some grain-hoarding commoner from Stratford, is all. It isn't easy to explain, even if (or especially if) you accept relativity as gospel truth (which I highly doubt).

As for your silly foray into "laws of theory," and your satellites lending credence to your theories, I don't think the wiki supports that. Somehow, I highly doubt a real rocket scientist actually depends on relativity as much as you seem to think they do.

What on Earth are you talking about? You are rejecting general relativity because it's difficult to understand and/or explain?

You sound as if you think that science is determined by opinion.

honeybear
April 10th, 2011, 07:52 AM
I have tested the theory and found the math from Newton's law to be very accurate.

The laws of theory have proven themselves, when you take into account that the basic math was used to place satellites into orbit of other planets. If the math had'fe been wrong, then the satellites would have missed the orbit or slammed into the planet in which it was sent to orbit.

Here is another link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

You know, Newton's law and all other scientific theories may receive high praise. They could predict the future and everything with outstanding, remarkable, constant precision. Everything would work out like predicted. That would help to see how far and when changes or precautions in human's life shall be made.

However today the systems are getting more and more complex. It is not anymore a simple local assessment which is required. Nowadays the system is focused on more human entities or humanity and its future. It has become global and has as well high complexity. This limits the range of applicability of the Newton's law and all other theories. Anyway it would be possible to make the assessments for predictions.

Added to that another factor shall be of concern. Although Newton's and other theories could be reliable and make possible with some excellent powerful computation devices or methods, the prediction aims are surely bound to failure and divergence to any prior calculations. This due to the following : the Human nature. The worse for any assessments or calculations to be reliable, the human's system is ruled by Money, greed, and there are no rules for that. Humans will never be any more beyond the system which has been created. Money rules in the human's created "system", and what could have been in the Newton's time a predicted path for a better life will have no success or will not receive attention. Today globalism is there and can lead to the doom of humanity. A simple example, humans play with fire, really bad fire. An example, scientific created nuclear theories. Money uses it for making bomb or making electricity. Leaders, presidents, ... have usually no idea of what they are dealing with. That's why we, you and me, are involved into tragedies. Because the persons that are on the top of the pyramid are usually elected from a pre-selected number of persons. -"The rich will be always rich", this sentence once said by a modern philosopher is today very present. In that sense, the rich have more chances to remain rich. Talented scientists, authors, mathematicians, or physicists have usually to fight today to continue and receive attention from the concerned public. They have a difficult life, and do not receive much financial support or any interests from the system, how it has become today. The friend of friend or of rich family, rather than really talented, are elected to higher. In addition, it is however today made possible to be rich, with little efforts, using Internet, business related, ... however it functions usually based on using the system how it is today. It is seldom dedicated for a better life and for humanity. Look for instance, nuclear, it would be easy to say. Replace all nuclear power plants by solar or wind or new emerging methods, however, it will never occur since there are politics behind. Two trends dominate today’s world political economy. The first is growing inequality. The second is slower economic growth. Everyone is nowadays into this system which typically uses the today's resources or persons rather than thinking about the tomorrow's good mankind.

NCLI
April 10th, 2011, 08:00 AM
You know, Newton's law and all other scientific theories may receive high praise. They could predict the future and everything with outstanding, remarkable, constant precision. Everything would work out like predicted. That would help to see how far and when changes or precautions in human's life shall be made.

However today the systems are getting more and more complex. It is not anymore a simple local assessment which is required. Nowadays the system is focused on more human entities or humanity and its future. It has become global and has as well high complexity. This limits the range of applicability of the Newton's law and all other theories. Anyway it would be possible to make the assessments for predictions.

Added to that another factor shall be of concern. Although Newton's and other theories could be reliable and make possible with some excellent powerful computation devices or methods, the prediction aims are surely bound to failure and divergence to any prior calculations. This due to the following : the Human nature. The worse for any assessments or calculations to be reliable, the human's system is ruled by Money, greed, and there are no rules for that. Humans will never be any more beyond the system which has been created. The money rules for the human's system, and what could have been in the Newton's time a predicted path for a better life. Today globalism is there and can lead to the doom of humanity. A simple example, human play with fire, really bad fire. An example, scientific created nuclear theories. Money uses it for making bomb or making electricity. Leaders, presidents, ... have usually no idea of what they are dealing with. That's why we, you and me, are involved into tragedies. Because the persons that are on the top of the pyramid are usually elected from a pre-selected number of persons. -"The rich will be always rich", this sentence once said by a modern philosopher is today very present. In that sense, the rich have more chances to remain rich. Talented scientists, authors, mathematicians, or physicists have usually to fight today to continue and receive attention from the concerned public. They have a difficult life, and do not receive much financial support or any interests from the system, how it has become today. In addition, it is however today made possible to be rich, with little efforts, using Internet, business related, ... however it functions usually based on using the system how it is today. It is seldom dedicated for a better life and for humanity. Look for instance, nuclear, it would be easy to say. Replace all nuclear power plants by solar or wind or new emerging methods, however, it will never occur since there are politics behind. Two trends dominate today’s world political economy. The first is growing inequality. The second is slower economic growth. Everyone is nowadays into this system which typically uses the today's resources or persons rather than thinking about the tomorrow's good mankind.

Could you please break this down a bit? I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

What does rich people have to do with the validity of newtonian physics and the theory of general relativity?? :confused:

Strategist01
April 10th, 2011, 08:21 AM
Hmm, I don't think that a new species, if it were large enough could wipe us out. We currently have the capability to destroy any large animal via projectile fire, explosive and nuclear fusion weapons. However, that only works for large animals. Small ones, like (killer) bees, locusts, spiders and cockroaches have basically taken over the outside and sometimes inside of our homes and there's nothing a gov't can do about that short of dramatically altering the weather conditions/a nuke.

Also, viruses and bacteria. In my mind we should stop using disinfectants as much as we do. Bacterial/viral resistance will kill us all. In hospitals especially. All you need is a quick wipe down of the floor, disinfect the area where the bodily fluids spattered, clean the walls regularly, but you don't have to use a disinfectant. The only place where I would recommend strong disinfectant is the clean rooms/quarantine where they keep patients with weak immunity or highly infectious diseases.

Surprisingly enough, use of dry copper in the walls (LINK (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110216120436.htm)) can also help curb infection. Just install a warming element behind the walls of copper for it to remain dry and to dry quickly once it has been cleaned.

My two of whatever the lowest part of your legal tender is.

koleoptero
April 10th, 2011, 11:35 AM
I just want to note for the record, Evolution is real... I never knew there were intelligent people who tried to dispute that. :(

There aren't.

Paqman
April 10th, 2011, 12:31 PM
the biggest threats are viruses and bacteria.

Not really. We've coexisted with them since the dawn of time, and it's not in their interest to wipe us out (we're their hosts after all, they need us). Humans are numerous and spread very widely across the globe. It's pretty much impossible for any one pathogen to wipe us out. There will always be people who're immune.

Philsoki
April 10th, 2011, 12:33 PM
Not really. We've coexisted with them since the dawn of time, and it's not in their interest to wipe us out (we're their hosts after all, they need us). Humans are numerous and spread very widely across the globe. It's pretty much impossible for any one pathogen to wipe us out. There will always be people who're immune.
Unless the Umbrella corporation has there way.

darrenn
April 10th, 2011, 07:22 PM
Actually what is going to do us in is pollution in the sea. The sea keeps getting more and more polluted and nothing we can do about it. Shipping containers full of dangerous chemicals falling off of ships. Tsunami hits New Orleans thousands of tons of garbage ends up in the sea. Oil spill in Gulf of Mexico 200 million barrels of oil end up in sea. Power plant damaged in Japan huge amounts of radioactive water ends up in the sea. Huge garbage patch in middle of ocean the size of Texas and only getting bigger. Prescription drugs that end up in fish. Etcetera, Etcetera

P1C0
April 10th, 2011, 07:48 PM
I'd say the Blob.

http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/605/605092/theblob_pic12_1113867889.jpg

honeybear
April 10th, 2011, 07:54 PM
Actually what is going to do us in is pollution in the sea. The sea keeps getting more and more polluted and nothing we can do about it. Shipping containers full of dangerous chemicals falling off of ships. Tsunami hits New Orleans thousands of tons of garbage ends up in the sea. Oil spill in Gulf of Mexico 200 million barrels of oil end up in sea. Power plant damaged in Japan huge amounts of radioactive water ends up in the sea. Huge garbage patch in middle of ocean the size of Texas and only getting bigger. Prescription drugs that end up in fish. Etcetera, Etcetera

And the worse is that nobody can really control that... so they abuse and it is for later going to be bad too... but no one do anything. It was like Ozone. Took about 50 years before it gets to something. US were the first in 1950 to preach for the sustainability. There are good books about it.

WRDN
April 10th, 2011, 07:56 PM
Clearly . . .

http://images.wikia.com/disney/images/4/4d/Drporkchop.jpg

DZ*
April 10th, 2011, 10:38 PM
These things make me believe evolution is just a theory:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1

Whoever wrote this nonsense is arrogantly proud of his ignorance. Parts that imply that evolution is impossible for biological reasons (such as that DNA repairs errors or that eggs in adult women do not divide) are especially telling. Have you ever heard of how bacteria develop antibiotic resistance? Do you think the differences between dog breeds are due to accumulated genetic changes?

Take a wild guess.

And please don't bring religion into this topic. This is about the theory of evolution vs. arrogant ignorance that is continuing to inflict great harm on society. If you want a good example of a deeply religious evolutionist, read what the director of the Human Genome Project, director of the NIH has to say
http://www.google.com/search?q=francis+collins+evolution+religion&qscrl=1

inobe
April 11th, 2011, 02:38 AM
personally, i think we are an advanced species and many of us fail to realise it.

Khakilang
April 11th, 2011, 05:11 AM
It depend on what type of new species. If it is a swarm of new species of locust that travel from place to place will destroy our crops within seconds. And if they immune themselves from pesticide. They are unstoppable. I always find tiny insect are more of a menace than a large animals.

MasterNetra
April 11th, 2011, 05:31 AM
If we came from monkeys and evolution was a normal thing, there would be no monkeys.

I think if a new species came, it would be from a different planet.

I think it would be good for humans to stop being on top of the food chain, it would teach us some values about life and this planet that we have forgotten.

1. We are a species of monkey, Ape to be more narrow with it.

2. We didn't descend from one of the other monkeys we share a common ancestor with them.

But getting back to topic...

Yes a new species could arrive and "menace" us, however, it would most likely be of our own making.


It depend on what type of new species. If it is a swarm of new species of locust that travel from place to place will destroy our crops within seconds. And if they immune themselves from pesticide. They are unstoppable. I always find tiny insect are more of a menace than a large animals.

Then I guess we will have to capture and roost them...mmm taste like space chicken. :P

piquat
April 11th, 2011, 06:32 AM
I'd say the Blob.

http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/605/605092/theblob_pic12_1113867889.jpg

Pffft, my army of trained killer tomatoes laughs at your "blob".

honeybear
April 12th, 2011, 08:58 PM
Pffft, my army of trained killer tomatoes laughs at your "blob".

Take care but it seems that abduction really occurs and exists. Usually the victims are not seen after, they puke a lot, and change their job, and life... (check on UFO forums...they have even videos about this fact)

Have you ever seen a blog doing that? ;)

3Miro
April 12th, 2011, 09:27 PM
I don't know about other species, but there is a Necromancer on the loose in this forum ....