Next stage in human evolution??

[Galindo]

Can you find a link about it? Read the ones I shared.. the consensus seems to be we are indeed using 100% of our brains, but not all at the same time, and some parts we're not yet certain as to their specific purpose.. if you have a link to this show, or, better yet, to a paper about it, I'd love to read it.

 

Well, your in front of a computer. All it takes is a few keystrokes in Google and you can find out everything you need to know about this "lost" gland. Some of it you may believe, others you may not.

[mooeypoo]

Well, your in front of a computer. All it takes is a few keystrokes in Google and you can find out everything you need to know about this "lost" gland. Some of it you may believe, others you may not.

You're the one who saw it, i would assume you have a bit more information about it. Seeing as I did my due diligence and supplied you with the information you needed, as the person making the claim it would only be fair of *you* to supply the evidence supporting your claim.

 

I don't need to do the work for you, Galindo. You make the claim, you should put up the evidence for your claim.

 

And we're not a mythology forum, we're a science forum. It's not about belief, it's about empirical evidence and the scientific method. I judge claims by the evidence, not by how subjectively true they sound to me.

[Galindo]

You're the one who saw it, i would assume you have a bit more information about it. Seeing as I did my due diligence and supplied you with the information you needed, as the person making the claim it would only be fair of *you* to supply the evidence supporting your claim.

 

I don't need to do the work for you, Galindo. You make the claim, you should put up the evidence for your claim.

 

And we're not a mythology forum, we're a science forum. It's not about belief, it's about empirical evidence and the scientific method. I judge claims by the evidence, not by how subjectively true they sound to me.

 

Well essentially everything can be thought of as a science. And the evidence is all over the internet. I could supply you with multiple youtube videos and other various websites to help you acquire this knowledge of the pineal gland. But a proper scientist shall make his or her own decisions on what to investigate and what not to investigate. I think the problem with us at this stage is that we think we are smarter than what we actually are. The truth is we still have a lot to learn.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=Gxi&q=pineal+gland&aq=f&aql=&aqi=g10&oq=

[mooeypoo]

Well essentially everything can be thought of as a science. And the evidence is all over the internet. I could supply you with multiple youtube videos and other various websites to help you acquire this knowledge of the pineal gland. But a proper scientist shall make his or her own decisions on what to investigate and what not to investigate. I think the problem with us at this stage is that we think we are smarter than what we actually are. The truth is we still have a lot to learn.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=Gxi&q=pineal+gland&aq=f&aql=&aqi=g10&oq=

Galindo, we're not talking about "a science" as in "a discipline". We are a scientific forum. We go by scientific method and evidence-based speculations.

 

Not everything falls under that, by far. Peer review, falsifiability and the ability to make predictions is the bare minimum of what a theory needs to have to be considered a scientific theory.

 

It's not about being smarter, it's about analyzing our reality in a manner that will allow us to actually make sense of it and utilize its laws to our advantage.

[Galindo]

Galindo, we're not talking about "a science" as in "a discipline". We are a scientific forum. We go by scientific method and evidence-based speculations.

 

Not everything falls under that, by far. Peer review, falsifiability and the ability to make predictions is the bare minimum of what a theory needs to have to be considered a scientific theory.

 

It's not about being smarter, it's about analyzing our reality in a manner that will allow us to actually make sense of it and utilize its laws to our advantage.

 

Isn't a theory the same thing as an idea. Giving birth to an idea is almost like a reflection of the person who it came from. I'm not trying to say that I am smarter than anyone. I may have conflicting ideas with you but that doesn't mean I am right or wrong. It's good to agree and disagree because that's how you learn. Einstein started with an idea, a thought, and it kept growing. Wouldn't you say it is beneficial to keep these ideas and thoughts going, even if some may seem bizarre or false?

[mooeypoo]

Isn't a theory the same thing as an idea.

Not in science. In science, a theory is a collection of laws and evidence.

 

For instance, the theory of gravity isn't just an idea, it's a collection of laws and explanations describing the behavior of gravitational force. Same goes to the theory of evolution; a group of evidence (vast amount of it) that describes the process by which life evolves on Earth. It contains the evidence, the explanation, predictions, sometimes math (in the case of the theory of gravity), and it follows the scientific method. Whether or not it is intuitive or "sounds right" is besides the point.

 

A principle closer to an 'idea' in science is a hypothesis, but in order to be taken seriously it, too, must have some sort of grasp of reality in the form of some evidence it's basing it on. It shouldn't be outright proven (that would elevate its status) but a scientific hypothesis can't be totally removed from reality, either.

 

Wouldn't you say it is beneficial to keep these ideas and thoughts going, even if some may seem bizarre or false?

 

No, of course not, if an idea seems bizzare, we should research it, but the conclusion as to whether or not it is true stems from the evidence that supports the idea, not from a subjective feeling about it.

 

Quite frankly, there are lots of scientific theories that are very well based and have a vast amount of evidence on their side but are completely non intuitive. They might be hard to grasp, but they are describing our reality better than simplistic notions that "sound good".

 

In the end, evidence, falsifiability and predictions are the factors that make a theory valid, not how intuitive or "right" it feels. That's why we have the scientific method.

[Mokele]

Galindo, two notes:

 

1) the idea that we only used ___% of our brain is flat-out wrong. We use *all* of our brain, just not all at once. There is no magic area we never use.

 

2) The pineal gland is nothing more than an endrocrine structure that regulates sleep-wake cycles and annual cycles. No magic.

[Galindo]

Galindo, two notes:

 

1) the idea that we only used ___% of our brain is flat-out wrong. We use *all* of our brain, just not all at once. There is no magic area we never use.

 

2) The pineal gland is nothing more than an endrocrine structure that regulates sleep-wake cycles and annual cycles. No magic.

 

 

1. Have you ever considered that some parts are not being used to full potential?

 

2. Life isn't just all science and technology, there is a spiritual side as well. You may think you know all about this gland based on this "factual" evidence, but isn't it strange that this gland produces DMT, a natural hallucinogenic? There are ways to activate this gland and start seeing more.

[Phi for All]

Isn't a theory the same thing as an idea.

This is a common misconception. A theory is the highest achievement of the scientific method. An idea has to undergo rigorous testing and review many times from many people and show predictable results consistently over time before it can begin to be called a theory.

Giving birth to an idea is almost like a reflection of the person who it came from. I'm not trying to say that I am smarter than anyone. I may have conflicting ideas with you but that doesn't mean I am right or wrong.

When your ideas conflict with those of scientists who have done thousands of hours of research, performed hundreds of tests and passed multiple reviews by other scientists, who would you say is more believable? And remember, those scientists followed the scientific method so we know they reached their conclusions objectively, free from the influence of what they wanted to believe.

It's good to agree and disagree because that's how you learn. Einstein started with an idea, a thought, and it kept growing. Wouldn't you say it is beneficial to keep these ideas and thoughts going, even if some may seem bizarre or false?

But when you're faced with mounds of evidence that conflicts with what you want to believe, how smart is it to ignore it?

[Galindo]

How well do we as human beings even know each other, better yet, how well do we know ourselves?

[Phi for All]

How well do we as human beings even know each other, better yet, how well do we know ourselves?

Are you expecting a meaningful answer? You are being vague and philosophical in a section that requires mainstream scientific topics.

 

No offense, truly, but I think you have a misguided image of what science really is. You have a sharp mind and you communicate well but you seem to have latched on to some very "pop" notions of modern science, stuff that gets plastered on the web that appeals to those who don't really want to delve too deeply before they claim understanding. It's a lazy approach (I'm not calling you lazy); it's very common to latch onto something one hears and assume that the person who said it knows what they're talking about.

[Galindo]

Are you expecting a meaningful answer? You are being vague and philosophical in a section that requires mainstream scientific topics.

 

No offense, truly, but I think you have a misguided image of what science really is. You have a sharp mind and you communicate well but you seem to have latched on to some very "pop" notions of modern science, stuff that gets plastered on the web that appeals to those who don't really want to delve too deeply before they claim understanding. It's a lazy approach (I'm not calling you lazy); it's very common to latch onto something one hears and assume that the person who said it knows what they're talking about.

 

I hear what you're saying but you have to remember I am still young, 18 years old. I have a different approach to everything I do. Since when is sharing thoughts illegal though. I'm sure you believe in some things that I do not believe in, we are different. We should be able to utilize the internet in the most beneficial way, and that is sharing ideas. You never know, your ideas could lead to the next big "theory" if you share them.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I am 18. I have been a member of this forum since I was 12. In those six years (yikes, it's six years now...) I have changed tremendously: at first, I acted like I knew everything, making 25 posts per day, commenting on everything I knew even the slightest bit about.

 

But what I have learned in those six years has taught me much. I have learned the value of doing research, analyzing evidence, and coming to sound conclusions. I have learned just how little we do really know. And most of all, I've learned the importance of thinking over your ideas and communicating them clearly.

 

You do seem to have a lot of ideas, many of them interesting. But you're just showing tidbits of them to us at a time, throwing one bit out and then another. If you could take the time to write things out, do some research, and explain your ideas, we could discuss them far more easily.

[mooeypoo]

Stop being defensive, Galindo, your age has nothing to do with anything. You came to a science forum, and the membership is trying to explain to you that the philosophical questions you're raising are meaningless in science unless framed in a scientific manner.

 

And your point, btw, about legality, is moot. We are not a democratic state, we are a private science forums, and while we welcome debaters, we do have our own rules. We would like to have a conversation about scientific topics, but if you keep randomly changing a subject and posting philosophical questions that are unrelated, then maybe you should reconsider your audience.

 

We're here to debate science. We are therefore analyzing all claims scientifically. If you want a philosophical forum, I'm sure there are lots out there.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Thread moved to speculations forum.

[Galindo]

Stop being defensive, Galindo, your age has nothing to do with anything. You came to a science forum, and the membership is trying to explain to you that the philosophical questions you're raising are meaningless in science unless framed in a scientific manner.

 

And your point, btw, about legality, is moot. We are not a democratic state, we are a private science forums, and while we welcome debaters, we do have our own rules. We would like to have a conversation about scientific topics, but if you keep randomly changing a subject and posting philosophical questions that are unrelated, then maybe you should reconsider your audience.

 

We're here to debate science. We are therefore analyzing all claims scientifically. If you want a philosophical forum, I'm sure there are lots out there.

 

The topic was human evolution, something I have interest in. I was merely sharing my ideas on how we might evolve in the future. I admit some of my other posts I probably should not shared, but I do my own research and observations on my own time. I am just as much a scientist as you are. I like to express myself in a way that others can understand, I am conscious to the fact that other people may read it. We should be able to talk about human evolution in a "loose" unscientific way, how are we able to analyze human evolution if we have not witnessed it before?

[Phi for All]

We should be able to talk about human evolution in a "loose" unscientific way, how are we able to analyze human evolution if we have not witnessed it before?

The benefits of having a science forum that follows the scientific method is that we don't have to be "loose", we can be precise. Precise is better when it comes to knowledge and learning.

 

What do you mean, "if we have not witnessed it before"? *You* haven't witnessed it, or science hasn't witnessed it? Why do you say "we"?

[Galindo]

What do you mean, "if we have not witnessed it before"? *You* haven't witnessed it, or science hasn't witnessed it? Why do you say "we"?

 

 

"We". The 7 billion people on Earth have not witnessed human evolution.

[Phi for All]

"We". The 7 billion people on Earth have not witnessed human evolution.

Wow. You know, there are species whose life spans are short enough to witness the changes in allele frequency within their populations and actually watch evolution at work. Do some checking on Drosophila melanogaster, the common fruit fly. We share a great deal with them genetically, and besides that, we have fossil evidence of evolution within human populations.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100111102538.htm

 

We actually are evolving.

[Chriton]

Speculation

 

-conjecture: to form a conjecture on the basis of incomplete facts or information

- consider possibilities: to think over possibilities

 

 

Galindo:

 

I feel sorry that your Post is not taken seriously, There are People in this Forum who will Bludgeon you with Math, Miss-read your Post and look for any reason to make you look stupid.

 

I have quoted the meaning of Speculation above but if they dont want to discuss your Ideas then they will Patronise and ridicule you, I agree with you that Ideas should be discussed, not only in Scientific terms, Good Luck!

[mooeypoo]

No one ridiculed anyone. Asking a question for clarification (as Phi did) or pointing our logical fallacies doesn't constitute "ridiculing", it is part of a logical scientific debate, which is what we - here at scienceforums - do.

 

Disagreeing with you DOES NOT EQUAL ridiculing you.

 

~moo

[Galindo]

Speculation

 

-conjecture: to form a conjecture on the basis of incomplete facts or information

- consider possibilities: to think over possibilities

 

 

Galindo:

 

I feel sorry that your Post is not taken seriously, There are People in this Forum who will Bludgeon you with Math, Miss-read your Post and look for any reason to make you look stupid.

 

I have quoted the meaning of Speculation above but if they dont want to discuss your Ideas then they will Patronise and ridicule you, I agree with you that Ideas should be discussed, not only in Scientific terms, Good Luck!

 

I could honestly care less if people make fun of me on the internet, I'm only 18 but I feel like my intelligence level is far past my age group.

[the tree]

I could honestly care less if people make fun of me on the internet, I'm only 18 but I feel like my intelligence level is far past my age group.

I cracked up.

[Galindo]

I cracked up.

 

That's just how I feel, not trying to be a dickhead or anything. I just think way outside of the box.

[Mr Skeptic]

I could honestly care less if people make fun of me on the internet, I'm only 18 but I feel like my intelligence level is far past my age group.

 

A recent study shows that people who feel the most qualified, are, in fact, the least qualified.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I just think way outside of the box.

 

The box is there to help people think. Most people are completely incapable of thinking outside the box. It is only with great effort that they are able to eventually learn to think inside the box. The great thinkers think inside the box, and when that doesn't work, they think outside the box. The non-thinkers can't think inside the box, much less outside of it. The uneducated don't know where the box is.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.