Quote:
My question is this. Are we, humans, the supposedly most advanced species on the planet, a virus? Not a virus as in something that gives you a disease. No, the virus dub is just a metaphor. If anyone has ever seen the matrix (no, I\'m not going to talk about that), then you would have heard one of the characters explain that humans are a virus, a parasite to this planet. So, based on this, let us reason. Over the constant evolution of Earth\'s inhabitants, all the species have maintained a symbiotic relationship with the Earth. The species have come close to extinction, and yet, their symbiotic relationship allowed them to surface again. However, as humans evolved, we started migrating. But not migrating like salmon, or buffalo, or birds. We spread out. Just as a parasite spreads through the body, we spreaded through earth. Other animals that migrated, they used up what they needed, left, then returned when everything grew back. Perfect symbiosis. However, humans, we all spread out. Since we have little body hair, we are believed to originate from Kenya. However, now, we are on nearly every continent. Spreading, eating up Earth\'s resources. Sure, now, we\'ve realized our drastic mistakes and are trying to recycle, and reuse, and other methods of repair. However, is Earth\'s damage reparable? Already, there is a massive hole in the O-zone, because of CO2, and also, pretty soon we\'ll use up all of our fossil fuels (ten years, maybe less). Of couse, humans will probably come up with another technological advancement, but at what cost? In less than a century, we\'ve punched a hole in the ozone, used up about 3/4 of our natural resources, and drove several species to extinction. I\'m not saying that we did it on purpose, And I know we\'re trying to repair it, but....will we be too late?

Quote:
There is no good and evil. Why? simple. Good and e4vil are but merely stereotypes. Good being the heroic thing to do which helps others. Evil would be doing things that ultimately clash with the \"Good\" people\'s opinions. Take Hitler for example. Yes, I do know, that some of the things he did were ......wrong. But that\'s in \"our\" opinion. Why don\'t you take a look at his point-of-view. he thought that \'Jewish people\' did not belong on this earth. He tried to change it, because it clashed with his own opinion. Now I\'m not making excuses for him, mind you, what he did was unjustly and utterly wrong. However, it is a good example of how one is good or evil. It all depends on other people\'s opinions. I mean, when say, someone is holding the world for ransom, I don\'t think they consider themselves evil, they\'re just greedy. Of course, this is just a stereo type of what \'bad\' guys do in the movies. But, when you really think about it, the \'good and bad\' are nothing but mere opinions. When someone does something, generally, its because they \'think\' it\'s right. It probably isn\'t, but that is in your point of view. And it may be in the point of view of others, and then, since you all agree, you would simply assume the role of \'good\' guys, and attempt to stop them from doing what ever it is that you seem to think is wrong. That is what good and evil is. Not the phony stereo type of the movies, its when you think that what one person is doing is wrong, so, naturally, since what you think is right, then what they\'re doing is \'evil\'. Now i do realize that somethings are wrong, such as mass murder of a whole population, but it all depends on the motives. If the person was killing just for fun...ok, that\'s just wrong. BUT NOT EVIL. THERE IS NO EVIL, AND THERE IS NO GOOD. THERE IS ONLY OPINION...(and of course the really psychopathic sicko that would kill for no good reason) ...but still. Remember that....

Quote:
Evolution is, by definition, the heritable changes that have produced Earth’s diversity of organisms. However, evolution has other definitions depending on who is viewing it. Some believe evolution to be an object of heresy, defying everything that they hold dear to themselves. Others feel that evolution is a better means to explain diversity of organisms rather than creationistic views. Further still, some people view evolution as merely a concept that isn’t worth their time. While this last group has no relevance to evolution in general, the previous two do. In the case of the first group, evolution is so offensive to them because the theory of evolution presents a meaning to life in which does not involve a divine. The second group is in conflict mainly because of the first group, because the general population of the world consists of the first group, thereby ostracizing the second group. Although evolution is still merely a theory, anti-evolutionists continue to attack evolution. However, as evidence against evolution appears so rarely, more and more evidence in support of evolution continues to rise to the surface, causing much controversy.
To begin, one must first understand the endeavors of one of the most famous men of all time. That man’s name was Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin was one of the first people to openly speak of the concept of evolution. In his book, The Origin of the Species, he made two very important points ascertaining to evolution. The first being that diverse species had common ancestors. The second point was that natural selection was the mechanism through which evolution occurred. With these two points in mind, Darwin was able to conceive of evolution as a process of change in a species over a great deal of time in order to become better adapted to the environment. This was because each organism left behind many more offspring that the environment was capable of sustaining. Thus, Natural Selection has a hand in the process of the killing off of the organisms least suited to coping with the environment, hence leaving offspring with genes better suited to living in the environment. Using this concept as a model, it is possible to comprehend that all organisms, diverse as they are now, may have developed from much more simple and primitive microbes. However, although Darwin’s theories provided in-depth explanations and an alternative to the given choices of the era, Darwin’s endeavors are still attacked even today, as his theories contradict the very meaning of life so instilled in the minds of the oppressors.
Several views against evolution have similar concepts. Most of which involve the absence of a creator. Some of the more prominent views include the fact that the theory of evolution leaves no room for a grand and divine ‘purpose’ as humans are so accustomed to. In the Bible, which is the doctrine of many creationists, it was said that God created man to take care of the animals and the planet Earth. Some of the most prominent supporters of evolution, who take to the supposed facts that plants and animals had a common ancestor, absolutely refuse to accept the evolution of Man. Another interesting counter-view to evolution is that God perhaps created “numerous beginnings of both plant and animal life, which were subject to change and growth, deterioration and development, according to his plan and purpose”, hence allowing the concept of evolution to meld seamlessly with creationism. This was called polyphyletic evolution. One final theory against evolution is the concept of the ‘soul’, of which evolution has no explanation, other than the extensive and rapid firings of the brain.
Although no theory is without its discrepancies, it is notable that in the movement against evolution, very few seem to grasp the concept that humans and apes are different organisms. Many people still act under the false pretenses that humans evolved from apes and chimps and monkeys and the rest of the primates not mentioned. This however, is a horrible lie, contradicting every theory in evolution in itself. The correct solution is that humans, apes, chimps, and every other sort of primate living today shared a common, less diverse ancestor. A more simple explanation is that humans did not evolve from their primal cousins. Another discrepancy in the countless verbal assaults against evolution is the monkey to man model, depicting a linear transgression from old-world monkey progressing to the normal working-day man, with every stage in between. This is of course, another fallacy, as 1. Man did not evolve from the old-world monkey, and 2. The different hominids depicted on that model did not appear in time in that order. In fact, they did not appear in any order at all. To be more accurate, some existed in the same time frame.
Another discrepancy still is the stereotypical view that organisms evolve and adapt to their environments as they progress through their lives. This is a horrible error of logical thinking, based simply on the fact that an organism’s D.N.A. does not change at all during its life. In fact, any adaptations at all are only revealed through great changes in the environment, in which natural selection takes its toll on those without the adaptation already embedded within their gene structure. Furthermore, it may also be asked why the human race has not ‘evolved’ recently. This is remedied through, again, another simple explanation. That explanation being that due to the amazing capability for Man to create his own environment, complete with controls and set parameters, Man is no longer hampered by the mechanism known as Natural Selection. Hence, no adaptations will be presented because there will be no need for them as such.
One final discrepancy that should be pointed out is that evolution is merely a theory. Although it is extremely believable and supported by vast amounts of evidence, it is still, in every way, shape and form, a theory. One cannot say they believe in evolution, because it is not a fact. It is merely an in-depth explanation ascertaining to the origins of the various diverse species existing on this planet. So many of the anti-evolutionists fail to grasp this, leading some to believe that they may not be as informed as they think they are. This is however, a minor discrepancy that has not greatly affected the debate concerning evolution’s credibility.
Many of these stereotypes exist mainly because society has not been educated otherwise. Furthermore, the anti-evolutionists continue to demand evidence as to evolution and its truth. As previously outlined, humans have not evolved recently due to their amazing ability to create their own environment. Furthermore, that ability has been rising steadily over the past ten thousand years. However, ten thousand years ago was a very different time from today, one with which had various situations in which adaptations were a necessity in order to ensure survival. One such situation is the Sickle Cell Anemia mutation, which is present in a great majority of the African population. The condition, Sickle Cell, concerns an individual’s resistance to a deadly disease known as malaria. The strange shape assigned to the blood cells by the condition prevents the malaria bodies from affecting the blood cells. This is a fine example of natural selection. Back then, when the sickle cell gene was not widely dispersed throughout the population, Malaria swept throughout the population, leaving only a handful of those with the Sickle Cell gene. Those few people had a large deal of resistance to malaria, hence making them more adaptable to the environment. Their offspring also carried the gene, and this new mutation carried out through a great deal of the population, hence creating an evolutionary advantage compared to their past counter-parts without the gene. This is a prime example of how evolution has occurred within the past several millennia.
Throughout the past eons, several different variations of hominid have existed. The first known hominid being the Australopithecus Afarensis, progressing to Africanus, with the Aethiopicus branching off to the side. After Africanus, there came a large divergence in which several variations branched off into whole new species, with the Habilis as our preceding ancestor. Next came the Ergaster, followed by another branching off, which at the ends of each branch included: Homo Neanderthalis, Erectus, and Sapiens. All of these different species have been confirmed through the fossil record. Perhaps the most memorable of all of these various hominids however, would be the Afarensis, of which an actual fossil was discovered.
Discovered by Donald Johanson in The Afar region of Hadar, Ethiopia during1973, the fossil known as ‘Lucy’ has provided what is quite possibly the most solid evidence of the evolution of Man. Lucy was only among the first of many hominid skeletons to be unearthed in the Afar. Lucy was about one meter tall, had a small brain, and walked upright, leading some scientists to believe that perhaps hominids didn’t develop large brains before walking upright. This has raised some controversy, and remains as a discrepancy in the evolution of man, mainly because scientists are still unsure as to the particular aspects that caused man to walk upright. Originally, it was thought that hominids began using tools and walked upright to free up the hands. However, Lucy walked upright herself, and had modern day ‘hands’, yet there was no evidence of tool-use at the site of her discovery.
Another strong example of evidence supporting evolution is the similar homologous structures within several variations of mammals roaming the planet. If the forelimb of a bat, a cat, a human, and a whale were compared, it would be noted that a similar bone structure is present in all four, again supporting Darwin’s theory of all living things having a common ancestor. If, all things were created individually from a ‘divine’ power, then the logical choice of action would be to create a suitable bone structure specified for the species itself. It would not seem logical to give four very different creatures the same skeletal structure. In fact, assuming evolution is correct, the current bipedal structure of man is disadvantageous to human beings. The consistent upright position creates large amounts of stress on the hipbones and spinal structures. However, if Man were created individually from organisms throughout the planet, it would make sense to give Man his own skeletal structure, rather than a modified one from a previous ancestor. (Campbell, Reece, 2001).
As previously indicated, no theory is without its discrepancies. Evolution does indeed have gaps. If examined closely, one will find that the fossil record is incomplete. Several species of hominid that have traits present in current hominids but lacking in previous hominids are missing. Furthermore, there are also various examples of evidence against evolution as well. There are several gaps missing in evolution’s defense. For instance, how does one explain the various different cultures within society today? As underlined in the paragraphs above, environment plays a serious role in the development of adaptations and how a species evolves. However, environment also has an effect on customs. Hence, different environment equals different cultures, customs, and languages even.
Furthermore, it seems hard to believe that humans are capable of conscious thought. Scientists are still baffled as to how we are able to have identity. The concept of a soul comes into play. It is said that God created the souls in each and every person, but there is no physical evidence suggesting this. It may be possible that humans do not have consciousness at all. What humans perceive as identity may be nothing more than incredibly complex firings of neurons creating a large network of thought.
One may also imagine how an adaptation can carry throughout a population in order for the species to be ‘better equipped’ for the environment. While it is highly unlikely that a mutation or some other genetic flaw would have a beneficent effect on an organism, in the event that it does, logic dictates that those without the adaptation would probably be eliminated through natural selection. This most likely would create a bottleneck effect, seriously increasing genetic drift and the rate of occurrence of an adaptation through the phenotype.
Creationism however, is not with its own defense. Although there are several anti-evolutionistic movements in existence, creationism poses the greatest threat to the theory of evolution. For instance, referring to the parting the Red Sea, it has been scientifically proven that the Red Sea is possible to cross barefoot at a particular time. During the time of such crossing, timing would be critical, and predicting tidal movements was not a powerful skill for ancient Egyptian slaves. This leads some to believe in the existence of a ‘divine’ power. However, creationism too has gaps. In the story of Noah, when God flooded the world and rid it of the infidels, the entire world was flooded and two of each animal were taken aboard The Ark in order to reproduce when reaching land after the flood. First of all, it is impossible to completely flood the world in the manner God depicted. Second of all, the estimated number of species existing on this planet is near 6 million. There is simply not enough resources or manpower to sufficiently gather up two of each animal, along with sufficient food for all of them. However, these are merely some of the discrepancies of both views.
In truth, there is evidence stacked against and for evolution. There is no true way to decide what is right, and what is wrong, because sufficient technology to do so is yet to be discovered. There may come a time when Man truly understands his origins, along with the origins of the rest of the planet. Ultimately, Man may never know the true answer to the questions of life. Man may never truly understand what it is that put him here, or whether or not he simply ‘evolved’ from lesser organisms to get here. The only truth Man may ever know is that he is here right now, in the present, acting out his life. This may be the only truth anyone knows.
In conclusion, evolution has many aspects, positive and negative. There are several views against evolution, and several views in support of it. It should be known that people in society devote their entire lives to understanding that which has put them in the position that they are now currently in. The ultimate answer lays within their own minds and opinions, because only what they believe is true will be true for them.

Quote:
Let\'s take a good look at how rapidly humans have progressed. Let\'s say, in the early 1400\'s. Back then, humans believed the world to be flat (....how exactly would they know when they would fall off?) and that if you journeyed too far by boat, then you would fall of the face of the Earth. Christopher Columbus, proved that wrong. Later, in about maybe 1800\'s, humans have colonized just about every continent (excluding antarctica) on the Earth. But, humans don\'t really make a huge leap until the 1950\'s, when humans sent up Sputnik (mind you, I\'m not too familiar with dates, so don\'t blame me if the dates are wrong). After that, humans were on a steep hill of technological advancement. In the 1970\'s (again...not too hot on dates), humans developed a computer, primitive, yes, but still, it oculd do basic calculator functions, and took up seven rooms. Now, humans have sent up numerous satellites, have propelled humans into space, and have transformed that massive seven room oversized calculator into tiny handheld processors that can fit on your key-chain. As for the computers, now, our computers can make millions upon millions of calculations per second, and we\'ve even set up a network of computers using interfaces called \"phone lines\". or, the Internet. Has anyone heard about the Earth Simulator? It\'s a massive computer filled with hundreds (okay..maybe exaggerating there) of processors. It can calculate trillions of calculations per second, and has simulated Earth for up to ten years in the future, all the way up to thousand years into the future. Humans have made several advances through the short time of the 20th century. Now, as we emerge into the glorious 21st century, I find it hard not to imagine humans exploring different star systems, or creating great starships within the next century....