Acceptance of Evolution Around the World

[Stayne]

I know the debate of evolutions vs. creationism has come up several times. It has often been noted that the debate on evolutions is specific to the USA. Recently, a study was published in Science (vol 313, p 765; If you don't have access to Science, you can get the original article here (http://www.auburn.edu/~bodilke/Public_Acceptance_of_Evolution.pdf) ) that used survey data from 32 european countries, Japan and the USA to compare public acceptance of the theory of evolution. The survey question of interest was:

Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.
A. True
B. False
C. Don't know

See the results here:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2565/25653701.jpg

The results are pretty interesting... saddening if you are a US citizen. Only 40% of US adults answered "true" to the question. The only country in the survey with a lower percentage was Turkey.

See an easy-to-read editorial on the article here at New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution/mg19125653.700-why-doesnt-america-believe-in-evolution.html)

The authors of the original article suggest that the lack of evolutionary understanding among US adults is due to the high amount of religious fundamentalism in the US (compared to other countries), the politicization of evolution by the Republican party, and poor education with respect to science and genetics. Thier conclusions are supported by demographics data collected in the survey and other similar studies.

[koruptid]

Something tells me that if the choices had included Creationism instead of simply "false," the results would have been different.

Anyways, this isn't very surprising. Europe has been growing increasingly secular for decades, and the continent is rather homogenous on religious matters.

[Stayne]

The study goes into a lot more depth than that one questions I posted. I was just trying to give a brief overview.. enough to hopefully spark discussion.

[Tone-Loc]

It has been my experience, growing up as a baptist in the south (not a Southern Baptist however, big difference... baptised at a relatively early age too... 12), that only the older generations still don't acknowledge evolution. Most people I knew believed that Genesis described evolution, a belief that I came to on my own prior to my baptism.

It wasn't long after, that my belief was much more founded in evolution, and that if creationism did happen (and in a universe where anythig is possible, how can it be 100% ruled out) that Genesis was simply an oversimplification of the evolutionary process. I know my Dad doesn't believe in evolution, or won't admit to it, but my mom doesn't deny evolution like my father.

[Zogo]

The only country in the survey with a lower percentage was Turkey.

a lot of the african countries would've been lower but I don't think they were polled.

[ass*assassin]

a lot of the african countries would've been lower but I don't think they were polled.

dont think so.. most of 'em don't have the time to take polls.. either

1. they are too busy killing each other off.. or
2. they cant read anyway..

[Zogo]

dont think so.. most of 'em don't have the time to take polls.. either

1. they are too busy killing each other off.. or
2. they cant read anyway..

lol..well there was a study correlating IQ scores with religious beliefs that many african nations took part in somehow.

[|RES|arod]

I don't understand why people make such a big deal about this type of stuff. A small percentage of the American population are qualified to make conclusions about our biological ancestors. The everyday working American could really care less about a biological process that really doesn't affect them in their lifetime. I am sure if you polled Americans asking them if they believed the axioms of probability, the results would be similar. The main point I am making is that no one is going to admit that they really don't know what they believe in regards to some subjects, and thus skew all results.

[Troile]

Globe, I think I saw the same thing, and those were australopithecus boisie (yeah yeah sp.) which is more of an evolutionary cousin than ancestor.

And would the results have been different in the poll if it was macro vs. micro evolution?

(Humans and chimps share 99% dna? Isn't that about same difference from a man and woman?)

[Sufjan]

I believe in evolution to a point, rather, adaptation. However, I don't understand the overwhelming acceptance of evolution in the sense that humans came from another form of life. It is simply a theory. If you are not religious, there is an equal chance that we were put here by aliens or that we came from dolphins. Why do I say that? Because we can't know, at least, not at this point in time. There is no hard proof to back evolution, only speculation.


I own a DVD movie (that I can't find anywhere now) that documents the earliest humans (who weren't called humans) and how we evolved. It was made by the BBC, and it looked extremely accurate. My favorite humans were the ones that seemed to be the smartest ones - they had huge jaws to eat roots (they only ate roots of plants) and they had dark red eyes (like Pierrot le fou ). They lived at peace with the world. But they died out when humans started eating meat and became carnivorous, developing frontal lobes and being agressive towards other species (and their own).

This, for example, is pure speculation. There is no way we could know that.

So I ask, why is it dissapointing not to accept evolution? Technically speaking, it isn't anymore credible than any other explanation for our existance, it simply became more widely accepted due to the coming of the Darwinian age.

[bayz]

So I ask, why is it dissapointing not to accept evolution? Technically speaking, it isn't anymore credible than any other explanation for our existance, it simply became more widely accepted due to the coming of the Darwinian age.

I fail to see how the theory of evolution is not more credible than believing that we were created by some devine being. While still a theory, all components of evolution can be backed up with actual evidence and data (i.e., the Miller/Urey experiment, natural selection, etc.). Whereas for creationism, there's... nothing.

[Terminotaur]

I believe in evolution to a point, rather, adaptation. However, I don't understand the overwhelming acceptance of evolution in the sense that humans came from another form of life. It is simply a theory.
What don't you understand about it? Do you understand the evolutionary concept of other life forms coming from another form of life? If so, what would make humans a special case?

If you believe in just "adaptation," how do you explain the fossil record in a better way than biology and genetics currently suggests?

If you are not religious, there is an equal chance that we were put here by aliens or that we came from dolphins. Why do I say that? Because we can't know, at least, not at this point in time. There is no hard proof to back evolution, only speculation.
Are you familiar with the concept of induction/abduction? Why do you say there is no hard proof to back evolution and only speculation? Evolution and selective pressure has been demonstrated in the lab many times and observed in the wild many times. The understanding of evolution has very real world applications in regards to pesticides and antibiotics.

it isn't anymore credible than any other explanation for our existance
It is supported by overwhelming physical evidence in anthropology, archaeology, biology, and genetics more than any other theory put forth. How does that not make it more credible than being placed here by aliens? It is certainly possible that humans were placed on earth right after a fossil record that suggested an evolutionary change and didn't actually evolve from a previous lifeform on earth, but it is much less credible.

[Stayne]

Why is the lack of belief in evolution in the US a big deal?

Because it demonstrates a lack of education among US adults. It demonstrates the power of christian fundamentalism. It suggests a lack of reasoning among US adults. It suggests that important decisions will be made based on unfounded (religious) foundations, not logical, fact-based ones. If the world-view held by over 1/3rd of the nation is anti-reason and anti-science (and that portion has a very loud voice as they have been given with the current administration), then it threatens the education of generations to come. That's why its a big deal.

There was a time in my life when I didn't believe in evolution. Not because I thought it was false, but simply because I didn't know jack shit about it. Some people at my religious 2-year college told me that Darwin was an evil atheist who tried to convince ppl that there was no god. So, I checked out Voyage of the Beagle (from the college library, interestingly) to see what the big deal was. There was no big deal.

Once you understand the ideas behind the theory of evolution, the mechanisms of natural and sexual selection, there is no way to argue against them. If you refuse to educate yourself, you do so at the cost of your own ignorace. Believing in Adam and Eve is easy. Its like believing in Santa. Someone told you about it, and you just trust them. Believing in evolution takes work. It requires taking some college classes, opening your mind to different alternatives, being honestly critical of research and findings, and challenging yourself. But, in the end, it provides you with an honest world view free from the run-of-the-mill religious prejudices.

At least, that's what it did for me.

[Sufjan]

Well, I believe in evolution. I just don't believe that it is possible humans evolved from 'lesser' life forms. Maybe you can persuade me otherwise? I don't have an excellent understanding of human evolution, but from what I have read it is all pure speculation with a few fossils to back it up which no one can even be sure if they are proof of anything anyway.

These are some of my thoughts on human evolution,

If it is the case that we have evolved, then why is it as far back as human records go there has been no evidence that we had evolved from something? Organized civilization is argued to go back roughly ten thousand years, potentially more. Why have we seen no evolution in this time? Has man reached its 'pinnacle' so to speak? If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes walking the earth? If this is the case, wouldn't we see half man half ape beings? Bigfoot perhaps?

[FluxCapacitor]

It takes milliuons upon millions of years to evolve. The earth has been around for 5 billion. Just because human societies sprung up 10000 years ago doesnt meant humans werent here. There were huge climatic shifts that helped spur human societies. Without them we'd still be shitty hunter/gatherers in familial parties.

[Sufjan]

How do you know the world is 5 billion years old? I would love to see the process in which someone determined that number.

I really expected this response, but I don't know if it answers any of my thoughts on human evolution.

edit:

In an attempt to answer my own question I did some research and came across this website, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html. The article explains how scientists have come to find the world is 4.5-5 billion years old. A few paragraphs down in the article the author explains how these are all assumptions and that none of the methods used to date these rocks can be verified because they can't determine if the uranium isotope ratios were evenly distributed throughout the solar system. If they are, then it is possible they are correct using this method, however, if they are not then all their information is bunk.

[Terminotaur]

In evolutionary terms, there is no such thing as 'lesser' life forms or a 'pinnacle.' Things don't evolve to become 'better' or more 'complex' than what came before it. Life just tends to gravitate toward being more suitable for their environment due to natural selection.

Well, I believe in evolution. I just don't believe that it is possible humans evolved from 'lesser' life forms.
Why is a human a special case as opposed to other species? Why isn't it even possible?

Maybe you can persuade me otherwise? I don't have an excellent understanding of human evolution, but from what I have read it is all pure speculation with a few fossils to back it up which no one can even be sure if they are proof of anything anyway.
We've found many transitional fossils. Genetics also supports the evidence. If they aren't proof of predecessors of modern man, than what are they? False evidence implanted by demons? I grant that that is a possibility but not credible. Everything else we know about biology and evolution aside from our theories of human evolution seems to support the notion that our 'pure speculation' is justified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

If it is the case that we have evolved, then why is it as far back as human records go there has been no evidence that we had evolved from something? Organized civilization is argued to go back roughly ten thousand years, potentially more. Why have we seen no evolution in this time?
Some estimates of the chronological origin of man (noting that homo sapiens are said to have came hundreds of thousands of years ago):
http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html
The color of one's skin, the shape of one's nose, and one's height is often determined by ethnicity and genetics, which is often determined by one's geographical origin. Of course, this doesn't show speciation, but it does show man is not immune to the selective pressure of natural selection.

If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes walking the earth?
Do you understand why bacteria still exist despite the existence of more 'complex' multi-celled organisms?

If this is the case, wouldn't we see half man half ape beings? Bigfoot perhaps?
Do you understand why species such as transitional species may become extinct?

[Stayne]

To say that a theory is based on an assumption is to state the obvious. If there were no assumptions, then we'd have all the facts and there would be no need for theories. What's important is that the assumptions are states so that they, and so that the theory that rests upon them, can be evaluated.

The equations to date ancient rocks/fossils/etc are extrapolated from equations used to date things that we know the date of. The greater the extrapolation, the more chance for error, which is why date estimates generally are given in a range - often a very wide range.

No method is perfect. But imperfect methods don't disprove the findings. One has to understand the limitations and gleen from the information what one can, keeping one's mind open for improved methods and new data. Science, unlike religion, is not cut-and-dried. Science is a process. Not every piece of the process is perfect, nevertheless it progresses at a slow and steady rate. Some findings bring about new and exciting changes with rapid growth. Those exciting times are few and far between. The publication of the theory of evolution through natural selection was one of those times. The publication of the theory of relativity was another. The discovery of DNA was another. But, not every moment in the history of science is as exciting.

Whenever politics gets involved with either science or religion, few good things comes of it. Political interests generally involve a persuit of power, not a persuit of knowledge or human interest. Both science and religion have been maligned due to political involvement.

[bayz]

How do you know the world is 5 billion years old? I would love to see the process in which someone determined that number.

have you ever taken biology?

[xero]

a lot of the african countries would've been lower but I don't think they were polled.United States of America: Better than Africa!

:rolleyes:

[Terminotaur]

Brain Size: 39% the size of a modern brain. Now, remember that the average human only uses 10% of their brain, in this century.
Urban Legend:
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

They were able to communicate almost telepathically- but more like, they'd look at eachother and just be able to tell how the other person felt, but on a deeper level than we can today.
I doubt this.

we were once peaceful creatures (millions and millions of years ago) but then we turned evil, as a whole. we turned against the world and ourselves.
You could probably make that argument for any creature that involves killing another creature and competing with themselves. Would you say that ants are evil?

[Terminotaur]

You doubt that humans can telepathically communicate? Fair enough, we can't per-se. But we can, when enlightened, understand ourselves and others at a very deep level.
Do you have absolutely anything to prove that 'enlightened' humans can telepathically communicate or that our ancestors were able to communicate 'almost telepathically?' It's currently a very unsubstantiated assertion often pushed by charlatans.
One reason this myth has endured is that it has been adopted by psychics and other paranormal pushers to explain psychic powers. On more than one occasion I've heard psychics tell their audiences, "We only use ten percent of our minds. If scientists don't know what we do with the other ninety percent, it must be used for psychic powers!"
Of course, you have a slightly different variation on this lack of brain utilization in your assertion. Snopes claims that you are committing the fallacy of ignorance (unless you can support your assertion):
The argument that psychic powers come from the unused majority of the brain is based on the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance. In this fallacy, lack of proof for a position (or simply lack of information) is used to try to support a particular claim. Even if it were true that the vast majority of the human mind is unused (which it clearly is not), that fact in no way implies that any extra capacity could somehow give people paranormal powers. This fallacy pops up all the time in paranormal claims, and is especially prevalent among UFO proponents. For example: Two people see a strange light in the sky. The first, a UFO believer, says, "See there! Can you explain that?" The skeptic replies that no, he can't. The UFO believer is gleeful. "Ha! You don't know what it is, so it must be aliens!" he says, arguing from ignorance.


Humans, when we lived peacefully, had no reason to make evil choices. Desires weren't part of our everyday life. We just existed happily, like animals. The only evil we would commit was to survive, and then it wouldn't be considered evil because it is instinct to propagate our species and our family.
When did humans live peacefully? Is living peacefully simply not attacking other humans? Do you believe animals exist happily and peacefully? Do you believe ants are evil? If you don't believe ants are evil, why would it be okay for ants to kill each other for resources for their survival, and why would it be evil for humans to kill each other for resources for their survival?

[bayz]

do you have any sort of citation or source to go with those images, globerunner? those scans could just be showing neurotransmitter activity or something, which really has nothing to do with how much of the brain is being used.

[Zogo]

I guarantee you there is much untapped potential in our minds.

I don't know if there is a hard percentage that can be put on it but that's basically right. idiot-savants have proven this. this one guy is able to learn a new language FLUENTLY in 3 or 4 days. I saw this on a documentary..I forget his name but it was very cool.

and even funnier is that he got this ability after being in an accident. I guess getting hit on the head is good in some instances.

[Terminotaur]

About living peacefully; yes, animals, in their natural state, are generally at peace. For example, put a camera on a tiger in the African safaris and you'll see that he's not expressing any abnormal emotions, or whatever not living peacefully entails. He's at peace with himself. If the Tiger is hungry, he will roam and stalk prey, then attack and eat it. But evil is not on his mind, this is instinct. Humans, however, have developed a conscience, and that's where evil can grow. Desires may cause a modern-day human to rape an unwilling woman. That human has lost his balance and succombed to temptation of the devil.
Certain animals have been known to rape (if you buy the interpretation that violent sex against a seemingly unconsensual mate who probably would otherwise not mate is rape). Do these actions make these animals evil? What would it take for an animal without a human conscious to become evil? Are you setting up your definition of evil so that it is impossible for an animal to be evil?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-human_animal_sexuality#Rape_and_apparently_coerciv e_sex
Controversial interpretations and implications aside (see Sociobiological theories of rape), sex in a forceful or apparently coercive context has also been documented in a variety of species. A notable example is bottlenose dolphins, where at times, gangs of bachelor males 'corner' females. The behavior is also common in some arachnids (spiders), notably those whose females eat the males during sex if not tricked with food and tied down with threads, and in some herbivorous herd species or species where males and females are very different in size) where the male dominates sexually by sheer force and size. Other animals which appear to combine sexual intercourse with apparent violent assault, also include some species of bird such as ducks and geese.

I don't know why your talking about ants, they don't have a conscience, they commit no evil.
Certain ant species wage war on other ants. They either attack ant colonies, make slave ants, or steal their young for food/slaves. Why is it evil for a human to do this, but not evil for an ant to do this?

[Stayne]

GlobeRunner, you hold one of the most puzzlingly contradictory worldviews I have ever encountered. Your thirst for knowledge is obvious, as is your open-mindedness. With some experience and reading, hopefully you can begin to filter through all of those ideas.

Brain Activity
PET scans are Positron Emision Topography scans. A radioactive dye is injected into the bloodstream and the part of the body of interest is then scanned with something a bit like an xray. The idea behind it is quite simple. The areas that light up the most are the ones recieving the most blood, and therefore are thought to be the most active. What is often left out, especially in brain research, is that the areas that are inhibited are just as important as the areas that are activated. Inhibition plays an enormous and relatively unstudied role in animal (and human) behavior and cognition.

Having the whole brain light up would probably only happen during a grand mal siezure, and even there there would be areas of little activity. The brightness of a PET scan has little to do with the knowledge of the participant, and especiallly little to do with the degree of enlightenment. It has a lot to do with the task that they are given to do during the scan.

Our scans never fade to black (The colors are specified by researchers to make specific comparisons between different brain areas, so the overall "brightness" is irrelevant. Plus, given the short time-frame in which a PET scan can be taken, sleep studies generally use fMRI or Macroelectrode technology. The techniques are very different, but the idea is the same as I've already explained.). When we sleep, our brains are active, only in a different way. Sleep is an essential part of life, and when we fail to sleep or have disturbed sleep, our cognitive functioning is greatly impaired (and no amount of caffiene or nicotine will alleviate it). What sleep does for us is still a topic of research. Many believe that our brains engage in a type of "memory consolidation" during sleep. Like an organization of the memories of recent events.

As for the old "we only use 10% of our brain" idea, that's bullshit. Anything we don't use, we don't keep. Our brain is our most adaptive organ. It is always changing. Any brain cells that aren't used either die or are incorporated into other tasks. If you wish to argue that we only use 10% of our potential, then you'd have a hard time deciding what is 100%. Savants have many interesting abilities, but surviving on thier own in the world is usually not one of them. They might be great at doing math or reading books, but they have tremendous problems in other areas. These problems keep them from being self-sufficient. Just imagine how retarded someone would be who is using 100% of thier brain. My bet is they would be frozen stiff, with every muscle activated, every sense maxed out to the point of not sensing anything, and every possible thought present simultaneously. Doesn't seem very functional to me.

Enlightenment
"Enlightened humans understand themselves deeply. This is basically a fact." Isn't that a fact because that is the defintion of being enlightened? Isn't that like saying "A brazilian comes from brazil. This is a fact." Erm.. ya.. b/c coming from brazil makes them brazilian. The sentence merely defines the term, it doesn't contain any factual information.

Human Ancestors
As for the BBC video, a lot of that stuff is what is referred to as a "Just So Story" (named so after Rudyard Kipling's wonderful book). What that means is, people take a little bit of evidence and create a story around it. It might be true, but there is no way to verify or falsify it. So, while it is nice, one shouldn't put to much stock in it. Those are the kinds of stories that anti-evolutionists like to use as "evidence" that scientitsts are just making things up. However, scientists aren't making the videos. BBC is.

The conscience
"We have lost our natural animal instincts. We have become victim to our consciences and desires (for food..., pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth daily, which breeds more evil.) These things all came when we developed a conscience (a voice in our heads that can say "do this, even though you know you shouldn't" and for some reason, we listen)."
Most people would argue that all of those desires ARE our animal insticts. The conscience is discussed as being a voice in our head, but it is nothing more than our awareness of our own selves. The thing that separates humans from non-humans is that humans can "think about thinking" and "talk about talking" (Skinner). This is often refered to as metacogntion. Unfortunatly, its hard to ask a nonverbal creature what they think about. Is it possible to think without language? Or did language enable us to think?...

In summary, you've got quite the assortment of ideas. I admire your open-mindedness. I suppose it is easier to prune one's ideas than it is to grow them from the ground up. Just don't forget to do it. Pruning is important.

[FluxCapacitor]

lyckantropen, it measures cerebral blood flow i believe. like when you go to sleep it fades to black, and when you have REM sleep it goes crazy. i don't think it has much to do with neurotransmitters, although axons firing may initiate a bloodflow.

Terminotaur, all I'm saying is that enlightened humans understand themselves deeply. This is basically a fact. It's obvious. And when you understand yourself deeply, if you are a normal human of this earth without some deformality in your genes, you can understand other natural, normal humans. I'm not claiming some paranormal activity, just higher level human consciousness.

About living peacefully; yes, animals, in their natural state, are generally at peace. For example, put a camera on a tiger in the African safaris and you'll see that he's not expressing any abnormal emotions, or whatever not living peacefully entails. He's at peace with himself. If the Tiger is hungry, he will roam and stalk prey, then attack and eat it. But evil is not on his mind, this is instinct. Humans, however, have developed a conscience, and that's where evil can grow. Desires may cause a modern-day human to rape an unwilling woman. That human has lost his balance and succombed to temptation of the devil.

Millions of years ago, these humans I'm talking about, the 'small brained' vegetarians, they didn't have consciences. They were, by all practical means, one with their instincts. They followed no voice in their head. There was no language. They got horny, sure, but if a woman wasn't in the mood, they wouldn't beat her to death and rape her corpse. Just like a male tiger wouldn't claw a female tiger for any reason, other than to protect.
We have lost our natural animal instincts. We have become victim to our consciences and desires (for food [which are the same as drugs in a huge sense], we succomb to pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth daily, which breeds more evil.) These things all came when we developed a conscience (a voice in our heads that can say "do this, even though you know you shouldn't" and for some reason, we listen).
I don't know why your talking about ants, they don't have a conscience, they commit no evil. It's impossible for them to. They are instinctive creatures, just like all natural animals. It's not until we lock them up in cages that they become hungry for our blood out, not out of hunger, but out of anger.



Guys you have to remember when dealing with globerunner is that he believes all that sort of undocumented bullshit. Like chi and whatnot. He basically believes anything put on the intraweb. So, dont respond to half of what he says because...1) his mind won't change at all 2) most of it is idiotic 3) he quotes usual suspects...great movie but come on, please dont quote hollywood movies as some sort of weird moral or philosophical statement

[FluxCapacitor]

I would like documentation of these perfect "small brains" as you like to refer to them as. I have taken many upon many of archaeology, anthropology, paleontology classes and some of the stuff you say is idiotic beyond anything I have ever heard. (BA and MA)

[Stayne]

hopeless?

Go to college, then do some grad school, read some journal articles in your chosen area of science, learn to think critically, and then come back and read the bullshit you posted. If you'll either be embarrassed or laughing, depending on your sense of humor.

I like that you are open-minded. Now you need to work on your critical thinking skills. Did you even read my reply to you? I tried to fill in some information gaps for you.

[Terminotaur]

So, dont respond to half of what he says because...
Well, I am really bored.

We may have access to 100% of our brain, but I think vibrational level is key to what I'm talking about. I forgot about that. MHz and such. Indian yogis have been measured and they are able to take their brain waves up to ~30MHz at will. Normal operating level is around 7-10MHz. Relaxed is 5-7MHz, Deep sleep is ~1-2... If I remember correctly.
If your brain vibrated in your skull 7 million times per second, it would probably turn into a paste if not obliterate your skull entirely. What exactly do you mean by vibrational level? If you're referring to a comparison between a computer processor and a human brain, such comparisons can be very difficult to quantify due to our lack of understanding and differences between computer architecture and the brain's structure. Of course, there have been attempts. I would be very skeptical of anything that puts the processing power of a yogi at 6 times that of a mortal man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain#Comparison_of_the_brain_and_a_computer

They would be very crazy, but also have almost limitless potential, if they could control their 'sickness' and relax, while maintaining the high vibrations. They'd be wide-eyed and oblivious, but if their brain was functioning properly, they'd be able to learn their new world in time (assuming there was some sort of an experiment performed on them that made them that way). Also, the only way they'd be able to maintain control and not be absolutely insane is if they existed in both extremes - Meaning their brain had the range of 1MHz - 100MHz. Schizophrenics lose control because they only exist in the higher MHz, like kites without strings. I think schizophrenics brains usually have brainwaves around 25MHz, but that varies of course. If you have the entire range, then you have access to your subconscious (lower MHz), and your 'superconscious' (higher MHz which contains a wealth of information about everything).
Your assertion that people could control the extreme of states and become enlightened is completely unfounded. Can you even produce a single example of someone who has become enlightened through this method, or is it simply an expression of your desire for the human brain to have some hidden and untapped 'limitless' potential that we don't know now?

All that other junk I wrote was just an attempt to philosophize the original idea because someone didn't think we were better people way back then.
All you seemingly did was set it up so that it was impossible for an entity without human sentience to be evil or just ignored me.

There are beliefs in your mind that you do not question; you don't even see them. One is language. You think it's inherently real. It explains things. But really, it takes real meaning away from the world.
Obfuscating terms may be undesirable, but it is not evil. Language serves as a mean of communication with both yourself and others. It doesn't take meaning away from the world in the slightest unless you communicate ineffectively or obfuscate terms. It helps describe the world. Language allows you to understand many more concepts that you would naturally understand.

[wads]

And your right about me coming back and laughing, I do that every few months after I have some life-changing epiphany ;)

then you're still not learning anything. you're just jumping from one unsubstantiated idea onto another. still not doing anything else to further investigate the thing you're interested in, by reading support justified or more likely falsified in your case, by the scientific process.

go take some critical thinking classes in college, maybe that'll help. i know they dont have those in highschool.

[Zogo]

Savants have many interesting abilities, but surviving on thier own in the world is usually not one of them. They might be great at doing math or reading books, but they have tremendous problems in other areas.

this guy I referred to actually had very good social skills. he's an oddity even among the savants in that he can communicate normally and isn't a recluse/lethally shy.

[Freakle]

please dont call it a "debate"

[Stayne]

please dont call it a "debate"

LOL! Right you are. My mistake.

[pitsniper]

The authors of the original article suggest that the lack of evolutionary understanding among US adults is due to the high amount of religious fundamentalism in the US (compared to other countries), the politicization of evolution by the Republican party, and poor education with respect to science and genetics.

I agree with most. I find thaet the poor education with respect to science and genetics claim to have no merit. Is this in comparison with other countries? Europe? I could argue that it is better here. A question like this has more to do with beliefs (i would suppose). Are most people basing the fact that evolution exists without really understanding the facts? Probably yes... so does this really make them better educated? I've also seen people with phd's in genetics and biochemistry that didn't believe in evolution. How can these highly educated people have such an ignorant stance? are they unintelligent?
I think you can notice from some of the comments people have made on this subject both for evolution and against evolution has little to do with scientific facts or current research
humans are very smart, and can adapt and understand things very well. I think the problem is that we are not very well suited for comprehending things on the macro time scale just like people have a very hard time comprehending things on the micro time scale, or even just things on the molecular level.

[Yesbama]

Why do you find the claim to have no merrit?
In high school I learned about the theory of evolution for about a month out of the four years I took science courses. My parents told me they didn't learn much of anything about evolution and came away thinking that humans evolved from apes. Most of my peers also believe in that same misconstrued idea, that the theory of evolution states that humans came from apes. It's very very sad.

It is ignorance and misunderstanding. It is our poor education that leads to this ignorance/misunderstanding, how can you argue against that? People simply do not like what they don't understand, how can you blame them? The problem is that most people lack the thirst for understanding of anything that does not directly affect their daily lives.

Arod, what you are saying is that most Americans are ignorant about evolution and in turn would say "false" instead of "not sure". So perhaps if they were educated enough, or at least weren't held back by religious fundamentalism/closed-mindedness, they may say "true". I doubt the majority of the people polled who did not understand evolution said "true".

Most people are apathetic and oblivious about themselves and the world around them, considering their potential for understanding.

Pitsniper, everyone is going to have their own beliefs. Those PhD's could believe creationism/FSM/whatever for any number of reasons. The point is that with better education and critical thinking skills the majority of people would be more logical and aware of themselves and their world. That is what is scary for me, that I live in a world full of people who don't give a flying shit.

[rebo]

Just a couple of points, I've noticed a couple of posts using the phase "its just a theory" or "its only still a theory".

There is nothing "just" or "still" about it, a well substantiated theory is the highest form of explanatory device science can offer. A theory doesnt turn into something else no matter how much evidence arrives.

You can have a disgarded theory sure, or an untested theory, or a substantiated one, but the term theory doesnt change.

Using this nomenclature the modern theory of evolution is one of the most substantiated and tested theories modern science has created.

N.b Jan.de,I think you are refering to monkeys as apposed to apes as it can reasonably be argued that man decended from an ape-like creature. Ofcourse man cannot be decendant from a monkey as monkeys diverged from the evolutionary tree after the most recent common ancestor that all apes ( including man) share.

[Yesbama]

Ian * :)
Yes the correct understanding is that humans and present day apes came from a "common ancestor." A lot of people take it personally and say unbelievably ignorant things like "I don't believe in evolution, people didn't evolve from f'ing monkeys, I didn't come from a monkey."

I think I hate that the most, the whole "I didn't come from a monkey so evolution can't be true."