What do you think of evolution? Theories, who we came from, where, when, whatever.

I would like to say now that anyone who says anything along the lines of, "You are all wrong. [A] God created us," can just keep your fingers off the keyboard and move to the next thread.

I'm too tired for formulating an intelligent opinion tonight, much less debate it, so let's leave it at "I think we all came from a common ancestor, a simple prokaryote that was created on early Earth by a chemical reaction that most people don't really understand because it involves complicated biological terminology".

You mean primordial soup? I understand most of that stuff, although I haven't been through chemistry yet.

I was just reading up on the mysteries of Neanderthals (no, not cavemen) and how they were around in Europe and the Middle East when humans first settled in those areas. If we evolved from one species of primate, then I think that neanderthals evolved from another species, but I don't think that Neanderthals were ever a part of human evolution.

Before that, the human species originated in Africa, right?

I was just reading up on the mysteries of Neanderthals (no, not cavemen) and how they were around in Europe and the Middle East when humans first settled in those areas. If we evolved from one species of primate, then I think that neanderthals evolved from another species, but I don't think that Neanderthals were ever a part of human evolution.

Before that, the human species originated in Africa, right?The Neanderthals migrated from Africa to different parts of the world, however some remained in Africa, and over the next several million years they began to adapt to the African climate(losing hair, smarter(you cant outrun an antelope by pure brawn) etc.)
Then the two possible theories scientists have come to make are that either the Neanderthals didn't adapt to the environment, and died off, or the new sapiens killed them over territory.

They obviously adapted, as they lived in several parts of the world for hundreds of thousands of years. I think it's most likely that humans and Neanderthals went to war over territory, but then again, they did once find a hybrid human-neanderthal in modern-day Lisbon.

You mean primordial soup? I understand most of that stuff, although I haven't been through chemistry yet.
Primordial soup is a terrible term, and I refuse to use it.

The theory is that on early Earth, there were adequate environmental factors to create organic materials, specifically amino acids (the building blocks of proteins), and this theory was tested by a man named Stanley Miller.

He reproduced the early atmosphere of Earth that Urey proposed by creating a chamber with only hydrogen, water, methane, and ammonia. To speed up "geologic time" in his experiment, he boiled the water and instead of exposing the mix to ultraviolet light he used an electric discharge something like lightning. After just a week, Miller had a residue of compounds settled in his system. He analyzed them and the results were electrifying: Organic compounds had been formed, most notably some of the "building blocks of life," amino acids. Amino acids are necessary to form proteins which themselves form the structure of cells and play important roles in the biochemical reactions life requires. Miller found the amino acids glycine, alanine, aspartic and glutamic acid, and others. Fifteen percent of the carbon from the methane had been combined into organic compounds. As amazing as discovering amino acids at all was how easily they had formed.

What do you think of evolution? Theories, who we came from, where, when, whatever.

I would like to say now that anyone who says anything along the lines of, "You are all wrong. [A] God created us," can just keep your fingers off the keyboard and move to the next thread.


I would like to say now that anyone who says anything along the lines of "You are all wrong. [A] Evolution created us" can just keep their fingers off the keyboard and move to the next thread.
Albeit they go hand-in-hand in certain aspects.

He reproduced the early atmosphere of Earth that Urey proposed by creating a chamber with only hydrogen, water, methane, and ammonia. To speed up "geologic time" in his experiment, he boiled the water and instead of exposing the mix to ultraviolet light he used an electric discharge something like lightning. After just a week, Miller had a residue of compounds settled in his system. He analyzed them and the results were electrifying: Organic compounds had been formed, most notably some of the "building blocks of life," amino acids. Amino acids are necessary to form proteins which themselves form the structure of cells and play important roles in the biochemical reactions life requires. Miller found the amino acids glycine, alanine, aspartic and glutamic acid, and others. Fifteen percent of the carbon from the methane had been combined into organic compounds. As amazing as discovering amino acids at all was how easily they had formed.

Except that there is no experimentation that will even closely sustain and/or construct existence of beings, thus the experiment is nullified if it supports the theory of life from abiogenesis without an ethereal being.

Except that there is no experimentation that will even closely sustain and/or construct existence of beings, thus the experiment is nullified if it supports the theory of life from abiogenesis without an ethereal being.
Experimentation, theories and hypotheses are nullified by follow-up experimentation that disproves them, not by the lack of experimentation to back them up.

That being said, the experiment produced organic material, correct? Since this is really all the experiment accomplished, it proves only that the building blocks of life can be produced in an abiotic environment, and nothing more. The possibilities exist that there were subsequent reactions that somehow brought the organic material together into a living organism, or maybe God just miracled them together, who knows.

Claiming that a successful experiment is nullified because there is no experimentation proving a further progressed, separate hypothesis makes no sense to me.

Primordial soup is a terrible term, and I refuse to use it.
The theory is that on early Earth, there were adequate environmental factors to create organic materials, specifically amino acids (the building blocks of proteins), and this theory was tested by a man named Stanley Miller.
Yeah. It is a terrible term, but that's how I learned it. The thing is, theories of creation (AKA The History of Life on Earth) was one of the first chapters in our biology book, which really pissed me off, and then straight after that we got into protein coding and in-cellular sciences. All in the first few weeks of class.

Anyway, I think that the only reason we (animals) came into existence is because photosynthetic organisms came into existence and provided the air (probably a compund of about 80% nitrogen, 20% carbon dioxide, and 10% other gases before plants) to be suitable for breathing. Plants first adapted to live in this environment, and then (this is where it gets very iffy) the first terrestrial organisms proceded onto the land out of the water, and animals evolved from that. As you get to smaller and smaller levels (cells, mitochondrial DNA, amino acids, amino acid composition, etc.) it opens the way to discovering how evolution progressed, but it's been so long, and animals have had roughly a billion years to advance, that it's difficult to tell what organisms we're related to just by studying DNA and proteins. As a result, we may only ever be able to speculate the origins of life and various species.

Anyway, I think that the only reason we (animals) came into existence is because photosynthetic organisms came into existence and provided the air (probably a compund of about 80% nitrogen, 20% carbon dioxide, and 10% other gases before plants) to be suitable for breathing.1.It's not a compound, its a solution. They're not chemically bonded, that would create some nasty stuff.
2.Suitible for breathing? Oxygen is just one element suitable for "breathing", its simply the fact that there was so much oxygen that the only way you could survive was to breathe it. Plants first adapted to live in this environment, and then (this is where it gets very iffy) the first terrestrial organisms proceded onto the land out of the water, and animals evolved from that. As you get to smaller and smaller levels (cells, mitochondrial DNA, amino acids, amino acid composition, etc.) it opens the way to discovering how evolution progressed, but it's been so long, and animals have had roughly a billion years to advance, that it's difficult to tell what organisms we're related to just by studying DNA and proteins. As a result, we may only ever be able to speculate the origins of life and various species.We didn't evolve from plants, its doesn't follow a linear progression, it branches out. We came from eukaryotic bacteria, along with the plants.

Umm...I meant that we evolved from the first terrestrial organisms that proceded from the water. The first forms of life on earth were prokaryotic, and the first multicellular organisms on earth were protists like algae. And we evolved slowly from protists right? Oh wait protists were eukaryotic...

I never did understand how knowing for sure weather or not we evolved from monkeys would do anything for humanity. Either way, so what? Why is it such a big deal... as far as I can tell, the most interesting thing happening out of that information is this:

If we did evolve from chimps (if at all) -
Scientist: "lol we pwn joo"
Fundie Christian: "WAT NO FAER!"

And if we didn't -
Fundie Christian: "loo we pwn JOO"
Scientist: "WAT NO FAER!"

I never did understand how knowing for sure weather or not we evolved from monkeys would do anything for humanity. Either way, so what? Why is it such a big deal... as far as I can tell, the most interesting thing happening out of that information is this:
If we did evolve from chimps 9if at all) -
Scientist: "lol we pwn joo"
Fundie Christian: "WAT NO FAER!"
And if we didn't -
Fundie Christian: "loo we pwn JOO"
Scientist: "WAT NO FAER!"
Idiot.

You know what? I'm really just kinda glad that I'm here.

I'm just happy I'm not some insignificant life form like a fly, or a skin cell... that would suck! I know it sounds weird, but I actually feel sorry for those creatures.

It would only suck if you had the ability to think it sucked.

That's what makes it suck. It's worse than vegetation... especially since skin cells are alive for less than a day, and don't flies only live to be 48 hours old?

i think the universe was created by meteors crashing

if this has nothing to do with this thread then soz i cant be bothered to read much

I think we were all created by the power of nature.

Except Abraham Lincoln, Chuck Norris, and Sean.m06, in order of existence. Abraham Lincoln was sent to earth from another universe to try and take over our world with his facade and promises, but luckily, John Wilkes Booth was here to stab his ass. Chuck Norris was created...I'm not even sure if he was created or if he's always been here, but he's too awesome to be seen on the normal human spectrum.

As for Sean.m06, he was just drawn and pulled off the paper and into our world by a mad artist. However, the artist didn't see fit to give him a brain.

I lost respect for you, even if it was a joke. Not to say I had any respect for you at the start.

I never had any hint of a respect for you anyway. Of course, you have a higher ranking in this world than the likes of Sean.m06.

I don't respect anyone on the internet unless they make me laugh. The only exceptions are Napalm and D_S.

They make me laugh, but not because they're funny.

I never had any hint of a respect for you anyway. Of course, you have a higher ranking in this world than the likes of Sean.m06.
heyyy! :mf_argue:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

well i belive u were created by some guy jumping of a cliff and landing on a peanut...oh w8 thats just your brain lol

huh?

heyyy! :mf_argue:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
well i belive u were created by some guy jumping of a cliff and landing on a peanut...oh w8 thats just your brain lol
Shut up kid.

well if he said all that stuff about you what would you say?

Probably nothing.

well if he said all that stuff about you what would you say?
I'd wouldn't say anything, but if I did want to say something I'd at least say something that can make sense.

Evolution is difficult to prove since we do not have any real recordings of a hundred thousand years ago and what humans were like then. The other thing making it hard is the evidence for it such as a slowly shrinking appendix and the fact that our skulls are born smaller than the adult size to make birth easier is considered an adaptation and some people do not believe adapting is a part of evolution (it is the main fucking ingredient). Also, neanderthals has larger brains than us but because it made childbirth painful they either adapted so a child's brain is not born its full size or they went totally extinct.

Also, neanderthals has larger brains than us
Obviously.Sorry I couldn't resist.

heres some (albeit not very reliable) help on the subject.
all of the world records in sport etc. (fastest runner, fastest swimmer, best boxer etc) are held by people of this or the last generation. keeping in mind that records have been around for ages (not 100 million years, but more than enough for quite a few generations to pass). therefore a record must have been set by someone in say 1770, then broken by someone in 1870 and so on. we are getting faster, stronger and faster in many areas of human physique. we are (on average) taller than the last generation. evolution is happening.


(the above is MY view on evolution. it has no real scientific fact or proven theory other than the bit about us being taller)

Thats a nice thought gussa, but there are a number of other factors which could be playing a role in the record setting. For example, new ways to train more effectively; bigger, badder performance enhancing drugs; selective breeding. Ok, so the last one might be a little odd for a person.

well yeah thats true.
and btw, the last one has a lot to do with evolution. the smart people breed with the smart people therefore creating another smart person. while the dumb people die off in life by doing something stupid like smoking or driving blindfolded.
thus we end up with a generation of smarter kids.

It's called natural selection. Chicks would rather have it with Mr. football captain than Mr. Chess Club Champ. Thus, their kids are more athletic, and the cycle continues. You don't see us getting smarter. Granted, people aren't usually that attracted to stupid people, but more people are attracted to stupid people than are attracted to unattractive or non-athletic people.

yes true..
i know about natural selection. i just used intelligence as an example.

I believe in microevolution and natural selection and mutation and the works... but I find it difficult to believe that all the diversity and complexity on Earth could have originated from random particles smashing together and somehow managing to survive and reproduce and adapt. And I don't believe that could result in the perfect system we have today, where mathematics and physics and biology all work together perfectly. Yes, Darwin's finches changed over time, but they never became anything other than finches. We can make fruit flies that have legs growing out their eyeballs but they're still fruit flies. (Besides, that stuff happened thru direct human manipulation, not nature, but thats beside the point)

The fact that all these sciences seem to work together is the complex way we made them. Do you think the formula for velocity or the way to graph a parabola is found in nature? The fact that all of these things work together goes back to the Mayans, the Romans, the Greeks and the Egyptians. We have, after all, had millions of years to discover these things, and observe the nature of...well...nature. Mathematics and physics formulas are our way of explaining things about our world and bettering our understanding of how things work, how things are. If the Mayans hadn't been all, "Hey...I wonder if there are other planets than ours...hmmm...I think I'll build a chart of the stars," then the Romans would have. That's what I think, but that's also deviating from the pont of evolution.

]where mathematics and physics and biology all work together perfectly. Yes, Darwin's finches changed over time, but they never became anything other than finches. We can make fruit flies that have legs growing out their eyeballs but they're still fruit flies. (Besides, that stuff happened thru direct human manipulation, not nature, but thats beside the point)
well how about this...

a horse decides that it would be much easier to eat the leaves on trees. but its neck is too short to reach. for some reason, the horses child is born with a longer neck and thus eats the leaves on top of the tree. however, a man sees this creature and realizes that its not really a horse. so he names it a long necked horse. that long necked horse then realizes that he can eat more leaves on trees if he moves to warmer climates and gets a thinner muzzle (snout whatever).

this process continues with different problems and different solutions until someone finds a creature they name a giraffe.

my previous disclaimer applies to the above post.
if you cant read that then here it is.
this post is entirely metaphorical and has no basis on science or fact of any kind. it is just a metaphor

On a Side Note:i think the universe was created by meteors crashing

if this has nothing to do with this thread then soz i cant be bothered to read muchYou Will go down as one of the dumbest G-Prime members to ever post.

Unquestionably.

well how about this...
a horse decides that it would be much easier to eat the leaves on trees. but its neck is too short to reach. for some reason, the horses child is born with a longer neck and thus eats the leaves on top of the tree. however, a man sees this creature and realizes that its not really a horse. so he names it a long necked horse. that long necked horse then realizes that he can eat more leaves on trees if he moves to warmer climates and gets a thinner muzzle (snout whatever).
this process continues with different problems and different solutions until someone finds a creature they name a giraffe.
my previous disclaimer applies to the above post.
if you cant read that then here it is.
this post is entirely metaphorical and has no basis on science or fact of any kind. it is just a metaphor
The problem there is that creatures don't adapt/evolve because they want to. They adapt and evolve because they need to in order to survive. You can't just decide you want a longer neck, and then evolve one.

remember, this was metaphorical.
the horse NEEDED to grow a neck to get to the leaves of the tree. (yes it is crap but shut up)

remember, this was metaphorical.
the horse NEEDED to grow a neck to get to the leaves of the tree. (yes it is crap but shut up)
Ok, yeah. Supposing there were no other easily accessible food sources, then it becomes a viable necessity.

a horse decides that it would be much easier to eat the leaves on trees. but its neck is too short to reach. for some reason, the horses child is born with a longer neck and thus eats the leaves on top of the tree. however, a man sees this creature and realizes that its not really a horse. so he names it a long necked horse. that long necked horse then realizes that he can eat more leaves on trees if he moves to warmer climates and gets a thinner muzzle (snout whatever).

If the horse needs that for food, that is one way to describe it, but keep in mind, it can take hundreds of thousands of years for any major changes to occur.

And if we didn't -
Fundie Christian: "loo we pwn JOO"
Scientist: "WAT NO FAER!"

Wrong, the scientific community really pays no heed to theories such as creationism, besides maybe a chuckle. Science dictates that there is a reasonable explaination for everything, and if one theory is incorrect, it just raises the liklihood that another is correct.

but I find it difficult to believe that all the diversity and complexity on Earth could have originated from random particles smashing together and somehow managing to survive and reproduce and adapt.

Are you saying that you don't beleive that life could have originated from matter and energy? Or do you mean something else by this?


some people do not believe adapting is a part of evolution
I really wonder about this myself, considering adaptation takes place in a single organism and evolution is over many generations. Really, what I'm wondering is, back to the horse analogy, IF the horse adapted, and say, learned to stack logs up to get at higher branches, then it wouldn't NEED to grow a longer neck would it?

If you can adapt to solve a problem why would you need to evolve to an already solved problem?

On a Side Note:You Will go down as one of the dumbest G-Prime members to ever post.
Unquestionably.
Correction...he IS one of the dumbest G-prime members ever to post.

If the horse needs that for food, that is one way to describe it, but keep in mind, it can take hundreds of thousands of years for any major changes to occur.
ITS A FUCKING METAPHOR!!!!

See it like this. Simply, the horses that cannot reach the tree die out, so horses that can reach the tree go on to reproduce, and as the lower leaves become less availible, the horses that can reach the next level up will survive, so as less food becomes availible, those that can get more food survive and reproduce. I know it was a metaphor, and I understand the concept, I'm just making it more clear.

Scientists and creationists need to keep to themselves or go to hell (no irony intended. The scientists can go to Mercury or Jupiter). But I'm sick of there always being argument over the way things are. I don't know why religious people need to pull a veil over their eyes to create the illusion that something controls us, and nor do I know why scientists have to prove everything just to make themselves feel good. Some things, if we don't just leave them be as nature made them, will end up harming us. There could be some dangerous shit out in space. Maybe we're better off not knowing what's out there.

Wrong, the scientific community really pays no heed to theories such as creationism, besides maybe a chuckle. Science dictates that there is a reasonable explaination for everything, and if one theory is incorrect, it just raises the liklihood that another is correct.Wrong, The scientific community is working with anti-matter and anti-energy to enable the justification of a great energy which once existed, before matter itself was even present.

Are you saying that you don't beleive that life could have originated from matter and energy? Or do you mean something else by this?He's referring to the synthesis and combination of organic compounds to form basic life.

I really wonder about this myself, considering adaptation takes place in a single organism and evolution is over many generations. Really, what I'm wondering is, back to the horse analogy, IF the horse adapted, and say, learned to stack logs up to get at higher branches, then it wouldn't NEED to grow a longer neck would it?Adaptation take place over millions if not billions of organisms,but whatever.

In response to the person you quoted, adaptation is a component of evolution, I don't know where you got that theory from.

If you can adapt to solve a problem why would you need to evolve to an already solved problem?adapting and evolving are the exact same thing.

all of napalms posts here need to be followed by "pwned" by someone else.

Unless Heyyou27 is here. He's pretty much the only other person who can actually "pwn" Napalm back. Though darn it for him he actually has stuff to do with his time.

Though darn it for him he actually has stuff to do with his time.You've become rather hostile lately, and what do you think I do? sit around here all day?

I have...? And no, I assume you too have a life. -_- It's just we spend more of our time on here than he does. That's usually what people mean when they post things like that. Or at least that's how I've interpereted it.

Whatever. It just bugs me when people make no sense whatsoever. I mean Coldin said that computers don't think "logically". I do believe that computers are built on the fundamental principals of logic, And Or and Not. Not to say that I haven't made mistakes like this before, hence all the kicking and screaming I received from deleting a couple posts.

*I'm a girl

thats logical

*I'm a girluh, what?

Female:

A person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.

this is hardly the time to come out.

Has anyone noticed that there are more threads deleted from the debate forum than there are things banned by the Chinese government?
=====
Female:
A person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.
I think by "What," Napalm was expressing that he didn't understand the purpose of your post, as it didn't pertain to the conversation at the time and was decidedly random.

I knew that

He referred to me as "he" so I was just clearing up any misunderstanding ;)

Weren't we talking about evolution? I mean, you talking about it? BTW, in about a billion or two years, human evolution will have reached a point where Homo Sapiens Omega is too advanced for them to require sexual reproduction, which will make sex organs obselete, so male/female discussions won't matter. At least, that's what I think. Being able to run at 50 mph will be awesome... too bad we have to wait so long.

You're kidding right?

You're kidding right?I hope he is too.

Yeah...I mean I don't know too much about Evolution but I know that theory is way too bogus to even be something scientific like Evolution.

he is an idiot
(could be a she)

Weren't we talking about evolution? I mean, you talking about it? BTW, in about a billion or two years, human evolution will have reached a point where Homo Sapiens Omega is too advanced for them to require sexual reproduction, which will make sex organs obselete, so male/female discussions won't matter. At least, that's what I think. Being able to run at 50 mph will be awesome... too bad we have to wait so long.
In order to maintain genetic diversity, animals must, repeat MUST, fuck. Pardon my choice of words but I want to be very clear. Without sex there is no genetic exchange when there is no genetic exchange a single virus or micro-organism can wipe out a species, just one. Look at the smallpox virus, or influenza (the flu), or any virus for that matter. If people did not make babies the good old fashion way, people's immune systems would dissipate over time and most likely, there would be someone who got a cold and then the rest of the population gets it and everyone is screwed.

Furthermore, we seem to be evolving in the opposite direction of sexual activity being obsolete, people enjoy it too much to stop.

Weren't we talking about evolution? I mean, you talking about it? BTW, in about a billion or two years, human evolution will have reached a point where Homo Sapiens Omega is too advanced for them to require sexual reproduction, which will make sex organs obselete, so male/female discussions won't matter. At least, that's what I think. Being able to run at 50 mph will be awesome... too bad we have to wait so long.

Are you from the future?

Furthermore, we seem to be evolving in the opposite direction of sexual activity being obsolete, people enjoy it too much to stop.
lol

He. Not from the future. Anyway, most of my theory is probably not going to occur, seing as man willl most likely become extinct, like all other species on earth, before we reach that point in evolution. And diversity? If this does occur my way, there will most likely be several trillion members of our descendants out and about the universe by the time this occurs. In fact, if our species does become that split up in the future, evolution may take several hundred paths. And, no, I'm not speaking as a college professor or even a grad student. All right? BTW, sex may continue, but reproduction changes form or becomes less common. Our descendants may not even like sex, being so different from what we are today. Face it, we're occuring rather early in the process of evolution. That is still debatable, though.

follow my example, use metaphor's or something

DudeoLongshire, if we were going to become extinct then the ice age would have done it. Part of being evolution is adaptation and so long as a species may adapt it will survive. We are no different.

Indeed. But the sudden shock of say, NUCLEAR FRIGGEN' WAR, would cause the environment to change in the same way that asteroid collisions (though not necessarily the one that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs) have changed the environment. As well as this global warming. In the next 100 years, the environment has the potential to warm at 50 times the rate it warmed during the past ice age. But that's a debate for another thread, now isn't it?

he is an idiot
(could be a she)
I would swear it's a she, because any good man knows that his sexual organ will never become obsolete. Pardon the crude joke.

If an ice age hit now, and it will soon, I think we know enough to survive it for a long period of time, although it will finally stunt and heavily decrease our population overgrowth. Nuclear war would also make another ice age, as it will only melt the ice caps further, creating a lack of balance in the ocean currents, causing vast storms in both hemispheres (probably in the southern first, as that's where the currents will get most off balance, as the most freshwater in the world is down there), and extreme cold. Extreme, perpetual cold + heavy precipitation = ice age.

To be honest, I would rather see our species die at the revenge of nature than at the hands of other humans who don't know what we're doing until it's too late.

Indeed. But the sudden shock of say, NUCLEAR FRIGGEN' WAR, would cause the environment to change in the same way that asteroid collisions (though not necessarily the one that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs) have changed the environment. As well as this global warming. In the next 100 years, the environment has the potential to warm at 50 times the rate it warmed during the past ice age. But that's a debate for another thread, now isn't it?Okay, so explain how "NUCLEAR FRIGGEN WAR" would have the same effect as an asteroid. I'd REALLY like to know.

Indeed. But the sudden shock of say, NUCLEAR FRIGGEN' WAR, would cause the environment to change in the same way that asteroid collisions (though not necessarily the one that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs) have changed the environment. As well as this global warming. In the next 100 years, the environment has the potential to warm at 50 times the rate it warmed during the past ice age. But that's a debate for another thread, now isn't it?
Tell me how your hypothetical situation here is supposed to convince me or validate your point.

Okay, so explain how "NUCLEAR FRIGGEN WAR" would have the same effect as an asteroid. I'd REALLY like to know.
the asteroid caused volcanoes to erupt. covering the earthin ash and causing an iceage.

NUCLEAR FRIGGEN WAR = NUCLEAR FRIGGEN WINTER = FRIGGEN ICE AGE
(^dont askme how^)

Kudos to gussa for explaining that last part to everybody. But can the conversation not revolve around me? You guys must all have equally developed opinions, and besides, it's just what I think. Yo, and, I'm a guy. And while all us guys may be perverts, that doesn't necessarily mean that we all strut our stuff, all the time.

I assumed as such, since you have the word "dude" in your username.

hes not just any dude, he's the dude of longshire!

I've pretty much said my piece.

yes.
now you have two choices.
1. leave this thread and come back when you've found something more to contribute
2. or you could hang around and answer every second post with some lame remark like "owned"
or "Evolution? try NEVERLUTION!" (like me)

Ah, this thing is good. By the way, does anyone believe in the whole "humans were brought to earth by aliens" theory as made famous by Stargate? My mum is big on that one.

To backtrack a little (sorry Happy, my thread =)), the reason the dinosaurs died out was because they were reptilian. Reptiles are ectotherms, meaning their metabolism only functions if the temperature outside thier bodies is warm (they can't produce their own heat). Now theoretically, an asteroid struck present-day Mexico (possibly present-day Mongolia), and caused worldwide climatic changes with debris blocking out the sun, making it a hell of a lot colder. Dinosaurs, and many other reptile species, could not survive in the cold, so they died.

Humans and other mammals, on the other hand, are endotherms, meaning we create our own heat and have a much higher tolerance to extreme conditions. The reptiles dying provided chance for other species to evolve, like primitive mammals, and thus humans, eventually.

That being said, we could survive an extremely heavy Winter if we managed to forsee it. If there was enough radiation in the air, we would die out, and so would plants and all other life (except certain species of reptiles, ironically, which are immune to alpha, beta, and gamma rays). As a matter of fact, a nuclear Winter would almost be good for this earth. It would give the earth much more time to rejuvenate everything and keep the human population in check (the world as we know it has enough natural, renewable resources to support no less than a population of 5 million, under the same population we have now) and teach the world a lesson.

Global warming, on the other hand, won't last as long as we think it will. Eventually it will melt the ice caps enough to make sea levels rise, creating storms large enough to consume and destroy everything outisde of a 3,000 mile radius from the equator.


Whew. Haven't done that in a while.

ha ha.
i live in darwin!

The other thing about global warming is that it is a natural occurance when it comes down to it. As magnetic north and south switch, the two gaps in the planet's electromagnetic barrier travel accordingly. This means that the average temperature will change depending on which part of the two-hundred year long cycle we are currently in. The planet has several processes which are both the result and the salve of this problem. Hurricanes, El Nino and El Nina are just a few that I can name right now.

Most lifeforms on this planet are capable of easily adjusting to this because their populations do not require as much as our human population does; I am referring to seasonal migration. Also, hybernation is a large part of it, especially with reptiles and amphibians. Lizards, fish, frogs, snakes and even bears, all shut down for the winter. There is even a frog which can be cryogenically frozen with zero cell decay.

Scientists think that snakes actually evolved from lizards who during one of the first ice ages hybernated deep underground, sleeping through serious climate changes such as earthquakes and volcanic catastrophes, perhaps even a meteor or two. Now I have to admit there had to be some form of a DNA altering climate change such as radiation. There was. When there is a meteor impact there is nuclear explosion and there is evidence that earth has been hit several times already, Mexico, Arizona, Egypt and Tunguska in Russia (June, 30, 1908 A.D.) are all spots where there is evidence of meteor crashes which produced evidence of a nuclear explosion.

I thought that the earth's magenetic field switching was a 4,000 year cycle?

It might be which would make a hell of a lot more sense to me. When I first learned about it I heard two hundred years.

Just to be safe, don't go on any airplanes for another 5k years.

y?
airplanes are made of ........stuff?

It might be which would make a hell of a lot more sense to me. When I first learned about it I heard two hundred years.
We learned about it last year in science class. My teacher sucked, so that was the only thing I found interesting in her class all year long. She said that the magnetic field is constantly switching, and eventually they will switch completely. I asked, "Won't that screw a lot of things up?" And she just laughed at me and told me that the last time the fields changed completely was about the time Siddhartha Gautama achieved "full enlightenment."

scientology?

My physics teacher was saying that if the magnetic fields switch then GPA systems will stop working and airplane pilots will be fucked.

If the magnetic field switches, then all sattelites will be screwed up, as they'll be thrown out of orbit. So a lot of governments will be without info, a lot of space organizations will be baffled, and a lot of people will be without TV. And GPSs.

but they dont just instantly switch.
they take 4000 years to do so.

True. Most of our technology is based on the principal that magnetic north is to the north.

My physics teacher was saying that if the magnetic fields switch then GPA systems will stop working and airplane pilots will be fucked.How does that work? GPS is based on radio frequencies from satellites. I wasn't aware that radio frequencies could be changed by magnetic fields.

True. Most of our technology is based on the principal that magnetic north is to the north.How much navigation technology is based on magnetism anymore. Please, let me know. Are those aircraft carriers going to get lost because the captains compass doesn't work! Oh no, Not the magnetic field!

How does that work? GPS is based on radio frequencies from satellites. I wasn't aware that radio frequencies could be changed by magnetic fields.
True, the actual broadcasts are not affected by the magnetic fields, but the broadcasting equipment sure as hell is. How do you think generators produce electricity in the first place? We're sure as hell not sending indian smoke signals to each other. We would be able to quickly fix any negative effect this might have on communication, but for the moment, the pilots would be screwed. Now how'd we get on this tangent?

Well the switching won't have that much of an effect anyway, because we all know it's happening. It'll only screw us over if we procrastinate too long.

Yeah, we'll be screwed.

True, the actual broadcasts are not affected by the magnetic fields, but the broadcasting equipment sure as hell is.In what way? So long as theres no cathode ray tubes or hard drives essential to their function, they should be fine. How do you think generators produce electricity in the first place?Okay, now you're you're just being stupid. Are you comparing the earths magnetic field to an electrical generator? Explain you're reasoning as to how they are similar. An electrical generator generates a constant stream of electrons by gradually removing them from a copper wire. The earths magnetic field is a tendency of charged particles to exist in space at one time. Not an electric current. because We're sure as hell not sending indian smoke signals to each other. We would be able to quickly fix any negative effect this might have on communication, but for the moment, the pilots would be screwed. Now how'd we get on this tangent?How did you get on that tangent? Your arguments don't make the least bit of sense.

so so far,
if the polar magnetic fields were to switch, there would be a lot of lost boy scouts.

They don't have to use a compass. Instead, they could just look at the North Star...I mean they have to be trained to do that at least.

so so far,
if the polar magnetic fields were to switch, there would be a lot of lost boy scouts.many modern day boyscouts also use GPS as navigation. We'd have a bunch of old stuff getting lost, not in this country through, like 3rd world.

Whoa, whoa, while overreaction may seem stupid in this case, any sort of underestimation can be even worse. "Better safe than sorry" should be the attitude in preperation for any large ecological event.

true...
however, it doesn't mean that the world will end

True that. All I'm saying is that it will screw up a lot of stuff if we're not careful. Whatev.

It is not a consistent 4000 year cycle, it seems to do as it pleases, but here is the thing, it happens over time and it happens so slowly that it does not matter in terms of navigational tools being totally effected. We are fine, we have been doing this since the beginning, anyway, it seems major societies have overall downgrades every so often so I think it is not a big worry. Oh ya, I agree with Darwin.

I concur. But don't come crying to me if the earth happens to explode.

I concur. But don't come crying to me if the earth happens to explode.due to what exactly?

MAGIC!


I agree with Darwin.
Charles Darwin?

due to what exactly?

Just sayin'.

Charles Darwin?
Who else? Darwin the Monkey?

the guy who lives in darwin?

The Darwin awards? Those have to do with evolution.

huhwah?

The Darwin awards? Those have to do with evolution.I hope you're joking....

The Darwin awards? Those have to do with evolution.
At least do some research before you post...this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Awards) is The Darwin Awards. It has nothing to do with evolution except for the fact it was named after Darwin.

rolf!!!

At least do some research before you post...this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Awards) is The Darwin Awards. It has nothing to do with evolution except for the fact it was named after Darwin.

The Darwin awards honor people who assist human evolution by preventing themselves from taking an active part in evolution, by either killing themselves, or sometimes by depriving themselves of reproductive organs. The idea is that someone stupid enough to do some things should not reproduce. Eat it.

The Darwin awards honor people who assist human evolution by preventing themselves from taking an active part in evolution, by either killing themselves, or sometimes by depriving themselves of reproductive organs. The idea is that someone stupid enough to do some things should not reproduce. Eat it.
No you eat it, the award is given to those who "seem" to improve the human gene pool. If one "seems" to improve the human gene pool then that means he just looks like he's improving it. If it just looks like he's helping human evolution then he's not really assisting human evolution by doing all that stupid crap. Therefore, the "honor" is just a reward for somebody for doing something stupid and it still has nothing to do with evolution. In fact the reward isn't even serious enough to be directly related to evolution because the whole thing is a joke. The award is not related with the actual scientific theory of evolution.

eat THAT!

Sorry, I'm on a diet. And, as you recall, you were talking about Darwin.

The thread is on Evolution, not Darwin.

would you like fries with that?
cause you just got served!

Gussa, stop trying to moderate who got served and burned and whatnot. You won't get far in a debate forum just standing off to the side and saying stuff like that and making unintelligent comments. Just saying.

Now, Darwinisms and evolution go hand in hand. Most theories of evolution come from Darwin, but it isn't as though Darwin invented the concept of evolution. He just progressed it, made it a relatively common thought, and opened it to a lot of other people.

The truth is this: natural selection is the most widely accepted theory, but it's only a part of evolution. The intelligence, will (sorry emo kids, you aren't biologically human), and ability to survive are certain necessary mindsets for a species to have in order to survive and progress through time. However, improvements are generally made to a species or, rather, a population, by natural selection.

And now to progress this thread from the obnoxious standstill that has befallen it.

This is only an opinion, but I think that the one thing that made humans more successful as a species than any other is the ability to communicate. That, and opposable thumbs. The ability to communicate is present to certain extents in many other animal species, but humans do it for everything. However, it could also be one of our main problems. Sometimes I wish we were more primitive.

well. said...
we've already covered natural selection.
p.s. what do you mean emo's aren't human?

What more is there to say? Anybody? I started posting here in hopes of finding some intelligent conversation (I spelled it right this time, Napalm!).

You can't turn to me for that because I'm trying to forget about Biology...seeing as I don't like that subject too much anymore.

there is really no more to say...
this thread is now doomed to be spammed with random

Yeah, Bio was my least favorite science class in high school.

Biology is one of my better classes. It can be extremely difficult, especially when we get down to cell organelle functions and processes and things like mitosis, meiosis, photosynthesis, and cellular respiration. A lot of people failed that class pretty badly, but I've done surprisingly well. I hope to be doing something with science in my career.

Sadly, I can't wait for physics. I love doing that stuff.

:goggles:

Physics is fun, but you don't get into all the cool stuff (magnetics, sound, light waves, etc.) until the end of the year, and because my school did a dumbass 3-week ACT prep in the middle of the year, my class never had time to learn it.

:goggles:
I can proudly admit that I am a straight-As nerd, and I enjoy science, but I still have a life, too.

ok... thats kool......
im a music nerd. i know alot about music related stuff

I just spent a lot of time on the internet looking at guitar wiring diagrams and guitar guts. I think I'm going to build a guitar soon with a '70's Fender Tele config and DiMarzio Evolution pickups. The whole thing, bridge, strings, pickguard, tuners, guts, etc. is going to cost about $300 to make, but an American made, handcrafted guitar that sounds like that would fetch some pretty high prices.

that would be cool....
it would probably cost too much to order up here....

Post a picture of it whenever it is you finish.

ill look at how much it would cost to custom build....

p.s. what do you mean emo's aren't human?

Don't you know? Emo people are gay tyranasaurus's. (my spelling sucks)http://static.flickr.com/71/229031121_d40fb58e32.jpg

oh i see.....
this is very interesting...

It all seems to make sense after that point.

my life has taken new meaning!

Hmmm...that picture didn't make much sense.

orly?

ya man...rly

Sorry... I guess it's kinda an inside joke. I thought it still made sense out of context, but w/e.

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/8121/1156170807991wn5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

rofl
thats a good photoshop job!

It is pretty good. They either got a picture of the whole wig and 'shopped in the rest of it, or they maginified it like a million times to make everything look so perfect.

why the hell did they put a teardrop next to his eye? I don't remember Adolf being involved with any gangs.

Yeah me neither. The picture is pointless, juvenile, historically inaccurate, and retarted.

But it's funny. And that's all that matters. Back to the subject of evolution....

why the hell did they put a teardrop next to his eye? I don't remember Adolf being involved with any gangs.

What do you call the Nazis?

o.o

What do you call the Nazis?A political party, but whatever.

What do you call the Nazis?
Gang: 1. A group of people, usually young, who associate regularly on a social basis. 2. A group of criminals or hoodlums who band together for mutual protection and profit.

I'm pretty sure that the Nazis discouraged both.
=====
I think they put a teardrop next to his eye to symbolize that emo kids cry significantly more often than regular people. Not because he was part of a gang.

you could still call the naziz a gang

why the hell did they put a teardrop next to his eye? I don't remember Adolf being involved with any gangs.
the teardrop is worn by members of Aryan gangs, Hitler was a proponent of Arianism, thus, the artist put the tear there. Personally, I think it is retarded for them to wear those as it makes them look even more like clowns.

the teardrop is worn by members of Aryan gangs, Hitler was a proponent of Arianism, thus, the artist put the tear there. Personally, I think it is retarded for them to wear those as it makes them look even more like clowns.I don't think the person who put it there meant it that way. In American gang culture a tear usually represents a kill.

Didn't know that. I just know it is used generally by American-Nazi gangs as a sort of identifier. Thanks for the new information Napalm.
Also, we are getting much off topic here.
=====
While the theory of evolution cannot determine the origin of a species it is so far accurate. It is a noticeably ongoing process and is examples are the refinement of various organs. Over time the average size of the human appendix is shrinking so as to not cause major problems by either requiring additional nutrition or causing serious damage and pain to the owner's body when inflames (appendicitis). Also scientists have noted how the human thumb is rounding out to a smaller but all the same efficient size. In addition to homo sapiens, Neanderthals slowly died out because their large skulls and large brains which were fully developed before birth made childbirth too painful. This is probably why our skulls and brains do not finish developing until after birth (the folds of the brain aren't even formed until a few weeks after birth).
Meanwhile, other species are developing at more rapid rates. Not only animals but bacteria and viruses seem to be evolving as well. During the Cold War Russia was growing seriously antibiotic resistant strains of bubonic plague and stronger versions of the smallpox virus.
For animals perhaps the most notable example is the common mosquito. During the 70's insects rapidly immunized themselves to various pesticides and after DDT (the most effective pesticide used but as it was carcinogenic it was banned) was taken out of circulation these immunities seemed to multiply exponentially.
Now then, I left out a bunch on this so I would have more left to say.

Evolution can determine the origin of a species. We know that certain species of primates evolved from chimpanzees in a period between when homo sapiens were evolving and when common apes were evolving. Stuff like that.

vitamin B

I can't believe my other thread got closed.

I can't believe my other thread got closed.What is the matter with you people?

We are more like sharks than other species that are branched closer to us on the evolutionary tree. If you want proof, search for it yourself, unless your brain isn't evolved enough to do so, in which case you wouldn't be on this website or even on a computer for that matter.

frookie:
you are proof that creatures without evolved brains can access the internet and a computer

We are more closely related to chimpanzees than any other animal. We are also closely related to mice, which is one reason they are used the most in scientific testing. You ever hear of them testing sharks for make up, or genetic restructuring?

umm......

We have a similar genetic structure to bananas, palm trees, certain types of fish, and opossums. That isn't to say that we're related to those organisms in any way, I just like to tell people that and see their faces when they start to think that we are.

We are more closely related to chimpanzees than any other animal. We are also closely related to mice, which is one reason they are used the most in scientific testing. You ever hear of them testing sharks for make up, or genetic restructuring?I think you're just a bit off there. I would think that they use mice because:

A. Mice are mammals
B. Mice are inexpensive
C. Most importantly:
Mice are not covered under the Animal Welfare Act of 1966.(Most other animals previously used to conduct experiments on IE Dogs, cats, etc. Are all protected)

And in response to the shark thing:

A. Sharks Are not mammals
B. Sharks Are water-dwelling creatures
C. Sharks can reproduce through asexual reproduction
D. Many sharks are endangered
E. Sharks are expensive

Anything else you'd like to add?

do sharks really reproduce asexually?
or are you using wikipedia?

Most organisms classified as fish can reproduce either way, I think.

I don't know about fish, but I can support Napalm's claim on the shark asexuality. I heard a report about that the other day; female sharks can reproduce asexually.
Also, lol internet arguments.

I don't know about fish, but I can support Napalm's claim on the shark asexuality. I heard a report about that the other day; female sharks can reproduce asexually.
Also, lol internet arguments.yeah, some hammerhead shark decided to have babies. But there was no man-shark around....

I think you're just a bit off there. I would think that they use mice because:
A. Mice are mammals
B. Mice are inexpensive
C. Most importantly:
Mice are not covered under the Animal Welfare Act of 1966.(Most other animals previously used to conduct experiments on IE Dogs, cats, etc. Are all protected)
And in response to the shark thing:
A. Sharks Are not mammals
B. Sharks Are water-dwelling creatures
C. Sharks can reproduce through asexual reproduction
D. Many sharks are endangered
E. Sharks are expensive
Anything else you'd like to add?

I wasn't the one who said we were related to sharks, I was commenting in response to it. And actually, we are extremely closely related to mice. I read about it in Discover.

yeah, some hammerhead shark decided to have babies. But there was no man-shark around....

Oh, yeah. I read about that in the newspaper. They said it was genetically identical to the mother (a sure sign of asexual reproduction).

lol @ sharks

In Soviet Russia, sharks get on the internet and argue about us.

Anyway, has anyone seen the movie Children of Men (or is it Children of Man)? I hope the human race doesn't turn out like that. That would be ugly and it would be a world in which I would hate to live.

Anyway, has anyone seen the movie Children of Men (or is it Children of Man)? I hope the human race doesn't turn out like that. That would be ugly and it would be a world in which I would hate to live.Near-Apocalyptic chaotic worlds would be the shit for me.

Thats why Fallout 3 is going to be such a badass game.

Living in a near-apocalyptic world would really depend on the size of a man's nuts and the size of a man's heart and which countered which the most. On the mountain of civilization, humanity was at its peak soon before now, or close to right now. Soon, or as we speak, humanity's falling down the other side of the mountain.

Can you repeat your last post with better grammar, because I am confused. Not trying to insult you, just wondering what you meant.

Imagine evolution as a mountain. These past...what...3.5 million years? Is that how long humans have been around? I'll just assume so. Anyhow, these past 3.5 million years has consisted of a long journey of humans climbing to the top of Mt. Evolution. Right now, at this very moment, I believe we are at the peak, or possibly we reached the summit some time in the 1990s.

This means that we will stay at the top of the mountain's summit for a hundred-ish years, maybe longer, and then we'll begin our descent back down. We can't stay at the top forever, you know. The air's very thin. Think of our running out of air as natural selection: it will be the reason for why we must eventually fall.

Now, the main difference between the climb up and the path back down is that the path back down is more of a sheer cliff, while the path up was not steep at all. That is to say, while the climb up took us about 3 and a half million years, the 'climb' down will take maybe a thousand years, possibly less. While we struggled with wild animals and opposing nature forces on our way up, we're strapping thousands of pounds of rocks to our body (the body represents all of humanity) and jumping off of a sheer cliff (that represents the other side of the mountain of evolution). Clear? So let's recap a little: the person climbing the mountain is man, and the mountain is evolution. Right now, the man is at the top of the mountain, and he's about to begin preparations to make his way back down the other side.

Now, one thing a person must understand is thus: the terrain on one side of the mountain (evolution) is completely foriegn to a person (who represents humanity) that lived on the other side for all of his/her existence. It's like...you live in a frozen tundra your entire life, you climb the mountain that blocks you from the rest of the world, and on the other side of the mountain there are beautiful plains and grasslands and happy little creatures jumping around. Which side of Mt. Evolution our man lived on before climbing the mountain is not important. What is important is that tundra, on one side of Mt. Evolution, is the complete opposite (unless you want to get all technical and go into climate regions) of a happy, pretty, green, grassy plain, which is on the other side of Mt. Evolution.

So what's going to be happening soon is that man will throw away all he has strained and strived for these past 3.5 million years, but it isn't like we're going to turn into monkeys again, which are then going to turn into tadpoles again, which are then going to turn into fish, which are then going to turn into the most basic life forms. That is not how it's going to be. Instead, this is what's going to happen when the man hits the ground after the fall off the sheer cliff: we're going to turn into ugly, helpless little creatures with poorly evolved brains who can't use tools or whatever. Eventually, we'll come to compete with all the other animals on our part of the food chain, and we'll adapt, as a species of post-human man, to our own niche. Possibly we'll be hunted by a completely relentless species that overpopulates us and their demand for food exceeds our population and we'll become extinct, but that would just suck.

If the last part of the last paragraph does NOT happen:
Over the course of millions of years, we'll climb the mountain again, only this time, it's a different mountain. After another several million years, we'll be at the top again. Only this time, we won't be humans, because we'll have started out as something completely different than what we started out as the first time we evolved. We'll have followed a completely different evolutionary path than we did last time.

So to sum up this last bit: say this time we start out as bacteria and by the time we get to the top of Mt. Evolution we're the humans we are now, with our tools, our technology and our generally superior brain power. Then we fall down Mt. Evolution. We crawl around at the bottom of Mt. Evolution as useless beings that I've decided to call moogles. So us in our post-humanity forms = moogles. The moogles will slowly begin to climb another mountain. We'll call it Mt. Evolution2. This time, we'll be something completely different than what we were the last time we made it to the top of the mountain. Last time, we began the ascent up Mt. Evolution as frogs, then we became monkeys, then we became us. Not the second time. Second time's totally different. The second time, we start out as moogles, then we evolve into keckels (the equivalent of the primate) and then we make it to the summit of Mt. Evolution2 and by that time we've evolved from keckels into...I dunno...packels. Packels are the equivalent of today's human with all our technology and tools and our superior brain power. And then we'll remain at the summit for a few hundred years, and then we'll fall down again and turn into something pathetic and inferior and the whole cycle starts over again.

So do I get the longest post on gprime award?

Too long, didn't read

Why do we we have to fall? I mean, I know we will, civilization will probably begin to crumble within 10 years, what with oil depletion, and global tension, atomic power, overpopulation, transport allowing disease to quickly spread. But why can't we avoid the fall, or make a hang-glider and float on to a different mountain?

It's characteristic of every generation to look ahead and say the human race could collapse at any moment. We're certainly not the first. You say that civilization will crumble in the immediate future, and yet how many people have said that in the past and ended up being wrong?

Yeah, but in the past they didn't have nuclear capabilities, and airplanes flying back and forth across the world every day. Not to mention the fact that we have all but depleted the oil in our planet. Its not like it grows back, when its gone, its gone. Nothing lasts for ever. Not even mankind. Eventually everything tumbles into chaos. It is just the natural order of things. Entropy.

we have all but depleted the oil in our planet. Its not like it grows back, when its gone, its gone.
actually, oil does regenerate.
just the regeneration process is so slow that it could not possibly sustain the ever growing human population....

actually, oil does regenerate.
just the regeneration process is so slow that it could not possibly sustain the ever growing human population....I dont think regenerate is the right word. Gabrielwhist is right in that when the oil is gone, its gone. the regeneration process takes thousands if not millions of years. However he worlds oil reserves are not gone. far from it. Oil companies like halliburtonhave discovered massive oil reserves, bigger than any of those found before. Only problem is you need to drill farther to get it. Oil might run out in a hundred years or so. By then I hope we're found an effective alternate fuel source.

but oil is created... therefore it will never actually RUN OUT....
there will simply not be enough to fuel the populations need.....

Oil is created by the remains of dead sea animals falling to the ocean floor and being changed into a combustible liquid by heat and pressure over thousands of years. It takes about three-hundred years to create a gallon of oil, unless I remember biology class wrong.

We can live without oil. Actually, the best thing for this planet right now would be if the UN decided to completely forbid the burning of fossil fuels by the year 2020. That would force scientists and whoever else to find an alternative for fuel sources, otherwise a lot of people would go into poverty and we would live in a very unhappy world.

We can live without oil. Actually, the best thing for this planet right now would be if the UN decided to completely forbid the burning of fossil fuels by the year 2020. That would force scientists and whoever else to find an alternative for fuel sources, otherwise a lot of people would go into poverty and we would live in a very unhappy world.It's easy to make an alternate fuel source for vehicles. The hard part is making an alternate fuel source that isnt dangerous nor that can be readily used as a terrorist weapon.

um... kinetic energy?

Oh yeah there's a solution. Make all roads so they go downhill. The problem with that is that the ground is generally level, and for every downhill there is an uphill with the exception of descending into hell.

I dont think regenerate is the right word. Gabrielwhist is right in that when the oil is gone, its gone. the regeneration process takes thousands if not millions of years. However he worlds oil reserves are not gone. far from it. Oil companies like halliburtonhave discovered massive oil reserves, bigger than any of those found before. Only problem is you need to drill farther to get it. Oil might run out in a hundred years or so. By then I hope we're found an effective alternate fuel source.

No, we are almost completely out of liquid oil. The thing that companies are finding is oil mixed into the earth. To utilize that is a very long process involving sifting and refining. It is very expensive, and thus use of this oil is minimal.

No, we are almost completely out of liquid oil. The thing that companies are finding is oil mixed into the earth.
you're an idiot....
liquid oil IS oil mixed in with earth..
you dont just find a big pool of underground oil and drink it out with a straw... it is inside porous rock beneath the earth....
To utilize that is a very long process involving sifting and refining. It is very expensive, and thus use of this oil is minimal.
DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT REFINING MEANS??
I DOUBT YOU DO AS YOU HAVE SO FAR PROVEN TO ME THAT YOU SCANNED THROUGH A GOOGLE NEWS ARTICLE AND PRETENDED TO KNOW EVERYTHING!

Um...Gussa? I think you'll find that most oil is in a pure state within the earth, although you are right when you say that it is compressed beneath rock. What Gabby's referring to is oil that is mixed in with the rest of the earth's sediments, like soil and other sorts of natural chemicals like phosphorus.

When you refine crude oil, you heat it to a very high temperature and run it through a number of chemical separation processes, and the high grade rises to the top, mid grade fuel sits under that, and low grade fuel sits under that, and diesel under that...actually diesel may be at the very top of all that but whatever. This is because high grade gasoline is virtually pure gasoline, and gasoline is extremely light, like oil in water. Mid grade has some other gunk and unnecessary chemicals in it, so it is slightly heavier than high grade. Low grade is the heaviest, most full of other crap that isn't gasoline. During the refining process, all the other unusable products, like the oil we use for motor oil, lubricants, plastics, and other things just sinks to the bottom. It would not be that difficult to refine oil that was mixed with soil and silt, you would just have a lot of soil and silt sitting at the bottom when it all got heated.

At least I think that's how they refine it.

No, we are almost completely out of liquid oil. The thing that companies are finding is oil mixed into the earth. To utilize that is a very long process involving sifting and refining. It is very expensive, and thus use of this oil is minimal.considering the current demand for oil worldwide, if the oil was almost out, why would it still be $3 a gallon instead of $50. your logic does not make sense.

And I indeed do find you're use of "refining" rather skewed. You refine oil by breaking it up into its different components by heating it to different temperatures. I forget the process name, but it seems as though you're confusing yourself with something else again.

heres one little article about how a massive oil store found just a few days ago.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51837

Wheres your articles about how the worlds oil reserves are gone?

you're an idiot....
liquid oil IS oil mixed in with earth..
you dont just find a big pool of underground oil and drink it out with a straw... it is inside porous rock beneath the earth....
DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT REFINING MEANS??
I DOUBT YOU DO AS YOU HAVE SO FAR PROVEN TO ME THAT YOU SCANNED THROUGH A GOOGLE NEWS ARTICLE AND PRETENDED TO KNOW EVERYTHING!

Umm, no shit sherlock. What I'm talking about is, as Neverender pointed out, oil mixed with other sediments. And yes, I know what refining means. It is the process of seperating one material from another through boiling. We learned about it in chemistry.
Do you have any what you're talking about? I doubt you do as so you have so far proven to me that you are incapable of so much as a simple scan through a google news article! Yet you still pretended to know anything!

At least I think that's how they refine it.
you're pretty close except diesel in somewhere in the middle, up the top are things like natural gas and jet fuel and down the bottom are waxes and tarmac.....

I can tell this thread is inches away from being closed, which would make my fourth one in the whole debate forum.

It doesn't seem to be going anywhere...

I'm kinda bored of the whole topic and just trying to argue with people out of boredom.

stfu
you ugly!

no YOU ugly!

you so ugly you make blind kids cry....
this one time i stepped in dog poop. and i wiped it on the grass. and the shape it made...... kinda looked like your face.....

U-G-L-Y you ain't got no alibi, you ugly, you ugly!
If my dog was as ugly as you, I would shave his butt and make him walk backwards!

you're so ugly, Alfred E Newman gets shit faced, rat arsed and gets hit by a jeep..
and still doesnt compare to you...

Your mommas so fat, she tried on a pair of BVD's, and by the time she stood up they spelled BOULEVARD!

ouch.....

This is quite a debate.

No...I think gussa and Gabby are both just pretty immature. Speaking of Natural Selection, I hope they get kicked out of both of their respective gene pools.

Hey man, we're just goofing off. Don't be so serious, the thread had already died by this point.

It's more a zombie thread by now, still walking and breathing... but dead.

Hahah, true dat.

dat true

Threads in this forum are usually closed long before they die.

Don't you mean...................... MURDERED?

O_O

quick!!
the dramatic prarie dog picture NOW!!!

What?

Threads in this forum are usually closed long before they die.
No. Most threads die, and no one misses them.

Looking back at the previous threads of the debate forum, most of them were closed. Anarchy plus all of my threads were closed for no good reason. And they were legitimate subjects, too. I can see closing all of Internal Conflict's threads about bagels vs. muffins, but come on! Closing a thread about the universe?

Looking back at the previous threads of the debate forum, most of them were closed. Anarchy plus all of my threads were closed for no good reason. And they were legitimate subjects, too. I can see closing all of Internal Conflict's threads about bagels vs. muffins, but come on! Closing a thread about the universe?
I meant the forum as a whole. I could understand the debate threads being closed though.

Threads in this forum are usually closed long before they die.

No, YOUR threads are usually closed long before they die. And maybe you just don't realize when they do die, so you get all annoyed, but it was actual a good thing they were closed.

Take a look through the debate forum. I think you'll find that most of my threads have lasted longer than many others.

Than I would guess that the debate mod just thought that they were old, the topics were finished and got sick of looking at it. Thus it was closed.

baah....

The point was that Napalm closes threads at the drop of a hat. Aaproductions hardly ever closes threads in the General Ramblings forum, and DP, Blackice, and Ryu hardly ever close threads.

is this a bad thing?

Not necessarily. I'm only pointing out that threads in the debate forum get closed quite a bit more frequently than in other places.

I'm glad anarchy was closed. It was getting out of hand.

it was out of hand from post 3...

Whoops.

Ha! Owned.

I don't feel owned.

Just cause you don't feel a certain way, doesn't mean you aren't.

Depends on the feeling. Like when I don't feel horny, I am not horny.

Good to know.

Haha, sorry, perhaps that wasn't the best example. The fact remains valid though.

It's true. You may not feel like you have an STD, but in reality, your reproductive organs are decintigrating from the inside out. On the other hand, if you feel happy you are happy. So I guess it kind of depends.

When you feel an emotion, you are whatever that emotion makes you feel. Feel happy, then you are happy. Unless you're bipolar.

i which case, youre happy when youre sad and vice versa...

That doesn't make any sense. What we feel is based on chemicals reacting in our brains in response to a stimulus. I suppose if a person was bipolar, the stimulus of say, winning the lottery would trigger the 'sad' chemicals rather than the happy ones. But I don't think feeling happy could actually make us sad.

i which case, youre happy when youre sad and vice versa...

Thats not how being bipolar works. Mostly it just entails rapid, large, moodswings which are usually easy to control with medication. It can also cause loss of rationality, and overly powerful emotions, which I think comes form an imbalance in the chemical releasal which causes emotions.

I suddenly have a craving for pizza...

Possibly due to your previous post in the question thread. ; )

Actually it's because of my pro ana thread. Discussing eating disorders makes me hungry. :P

Creepy?

Not really. If you think about waking up not eating anything at all... and continue to do so for an entire day. Drinking only water or diet coke, and eating only mints or chewing gum... O_O It seems like torture!

I agree. But thinking about eating disorders grosses me out, it doesn't make me hungry.

It makes me think of pale girls with bulging eyes and very thin, straight hair who dissappear when they turn sideways.

Speaking of food, I tried to make a pie with a totally awesome vanilla fudge topping. It turned out really well at first, but my refridgerator got so cold that it froze the fudge on top of the pie and basically ruined it. I'm usually a really good cook, but this lowered my standards forever.

Damn. Now I'm really hungry for something really sweet.

I love cooking. I make a steak sandwhich that is to die for.