QUOTE(MTGaming @ Jul 8 2006, 01:36 PM) 
I have a theory about the next evolution of *person* sapiens (correct terminology for humans). Well actually 3 theories.
Theory one:
Humans will not evolve one more time before the end of the world. But instead deevolve because we have had it in the spot light for far to long. *person* sapiens have been the most dominent creatures on the planet.
Theory two:
Humans have evolve thousands of times already. Every time we get smarter and smarter and make a great stride in any field whether it is Science (mostly science though) to Language Arts. Like the first human in space we evolve enough to get the inteligence of building a rocket or space craft that will go in space.
Theory three:
Humans will be wipped out before we have a chance to evolve. Like the dinosaurs lay live as the dominent creatures of the planet for millions of years. We are going to be the dominent creatures of the planet for millions of years too then be wipped out. Mostly by the climate changing far to fast for humans to adapt too.
Theory one:
Humans will not evolve one more time before the end of the world. But instead deevolve because we have had it in the spot light for far to long. *person* sapiens have been the most dominent creatures on the planet.
Theory two:
Humans have evolve thousands of times already. Every time we get smarter and smarter and make a great stride in any field whether it is Science (mostly science though) to Language Arts. Like the first human in space we evolve enough to get the inteligence of building a rocket or space craft that will go in space.
Theory three:
Humans will be wipped out before we have a chance to evolve. Like the dinosaurs lay live as the dominent creatures of the planet for millions of years. We are going to be the dominent creatures of the planet for millions of years too then be wipped out. Mostly by the climate changing far to fast for humans to adapt too.
1- Sorry I didn't notice this topic before, so I will respond to the original post first.
2- We again in cycle. The poster must define what he/she means by "evolution" and what the poster means by "theory". Is "theory" the scientific theory or any hypothesis or direction. I guess the poster uses "theory" in public definition i.e. the second option up. That all these three theories are suggestion, hypotheses or thought. Then there are long way to prove these these hypotheses to become theory [I will quote from some previous postings in this forum before:]
QUOTE
- The hypothesis or the theory in the common meaning will be considered scientific theory if it satisfied many requirements among them:
logically "OR" Empirically tested and based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments . A theory which cannot be tested empirically is useless for researchers.
lead to predictions or reproductions that are testable. A theory which has not made any actually verified predictions might prove useful in the future when its predictions are verified, but not currently. A theory which cannot provide reproductions (to utilise present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event or state of affairs) may also be useful in the future, but not currently. If a theory's results cannot be reproduced, it is impossible to determine if those results were ever actually valid (rather than the result of error or fraud).
falsifiable (i.e., cases must exist in which the theory can be imagined to be invalid). For example saying "Things fall down" will be invalid if we find an object fall up. When a theory is not falsifiable, it is impossible to tell if it is true or not, and thus it won't be possible to correct it via experimentation. & Falsifiable
So one important requirement to be a theory is to help us to predict future events. For example When we launch a satellite we know from our theories where it will be after 2 days for example or when it will arrive to its planned position.
logically "OR" Empirically tested and based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments . A theory which cannot be tested empirically is useless for researchers.
lead to predictions or reproductions that are testable. A theory which has not made any actually verified predictions might prove useful in the future when its predictions are verified, but not currently. A theory which cannot provide reproductions (to utilise present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event or state of affairs) may also be useful in the future, but not currently. If a theory's results cannot be reproduced, it is impossible to determine if those results were ever actually valid (rather than the result of error or fraud).
falsifiable (i.e., cases must exist in which the theory can be imagined to be invalid). For example saying "Things fall down" will be invalid if we find an object fall up. When a theory is not falsifiable, it is impossible to tell if it is true or not, and thus it won't be possible to correct it via experimentation. & Falsifiable
So one important requirement to be a theory is to help us to predict future events. For example When we launch a satellite we know from our theories where it will be after 2 days for example or when it will arrive to its planned position.
See "What is Science" at : http://www.sedrak.trap17.com/what_is_science.htm
and "What is Scientific Method?" at: http://www.sedrak.trap17.com/scientific_theory.htm
3- There are many types of evolution. So it is better to count the types of the evolution. . There are six types of evolution in my accumulated knowledge base from many sources]: I will quote them from my previous posting:
QUOTE
There are 6 types of evolution known to me:
(i) Cosmic Evolution (the origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing, there are 5 different theories competing . Each has its strength or weakness. The famous one the "big bang" theory does not address the major question, "where did everything come from?" . How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion causes only disorder and dist ructions? Also the Big Bang also violates two out of three Laws of Thermodynamics);
(ii) Chemical Evolution:(the development of the higher elements from hydrogen- assumptions);
iii) Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets amount to anything more than "fairy tales," and imagination has no part in real science);
iv) Organic Evolution (the origin of organic life. Spontaneous Generation as the Origin of Life, despite the apparent contradiction to empirical science). Francesco Reid and Louis Pasteur have succeeded in disproving Spontaneous Generation long time ago.
(v) Macro Evolution (Large-scale, or major changes from one kind of life form to another (assumption) involving innovations in structure or body plan, or new organs. Nothing approved that happen and is still lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record, and the harmful trend of genetic mutation. ,
(vi) Micro Evolution (small-scale, or minor changes and adaptations within a population of life forms i.e. the variation within the kinds). This observed and documented. It does not result in leaps between one kind of life form and another, but in a wide variation of types of this same form. Although we observe many varieties within the group, a finch remains a finch, a virus a virus, a moth a moth, etc. We are familiar with breeding process to produce various kinds of horses, cows, cheep, dogs, cats,...etc.. The "variation within a kind" is what Darwin observed in the mid-1800's, and what we still observe today... Also We all know and recognise the viruses and bacteria development as well as the development of the defence system But no scientist has ever seen a host animal develop a new defence mechanism causing it to evolve into a higher life-from; similarly, no one has ever witnessed a parasite develop a new, improved attack method that ultimately resulted in its transformation into a new species. (macro evolution if occurred) .
(i) Cosmic Evolution (the origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing, there are 5 different theories competing . Each has its strength or weakness. The famous one the "big bang" theory does not address the major question, "where did everything come from?" . How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion causes only disorder and dist ructions? Also the Big Bang also violates two out of three Laws of Thermodynamics);
(ii) Chemical Evolution:(the development of the higher elements from hydrogen- assumptions);
iii) Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets amount to anything more than "fairy tales," and imagination has no part in real science);
iv) Organic Evolution (the origin of organic life. Spontaneous Generation as the Origin of Life, despite the apparent contradiction to empirical science). Francesco Reid and Louis Pasteur have succeeded in disproving Spontaneous Generation long time ago.
(v) Macro Evolution (Large-scale, or major changes from one kind of life form to another (assumption) involving innovations in structure or body plan, or new organs. Nothing approved that happen and is still lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record, and the harmful trend of genetic mutation. ,
(vi) Micro Evolution (small-scale, or minor changes and adaptations within a population of life forms i.e. the variation within the kinds). This observed and documented. It does not result in leaps between one kind of life form and another, but in a wide variation of types of this same form. Although we observe many varieties within the group, a finch remains a finch, a virus a virus, a moth a moth, etc. We are familiar with breeding process to produce various kinds of horses, cows, cheep, dogs, cats,...etc.. The "variation within a kind" is what Darwin observed in the mid-1800's, and what we still observe today... Also We all know and recognise the viruses and bacteria development as well as the development of the defence system But no scientist has ever seen a host animal develop a new defence mechanism causing it to evolve into a higher life-from; similarly, no one has ever witnessed a parasite develop a new, improved attack method that ultimately resulted in its transformation into a new species. (macro evolution if occurred) .
4- How can the poster proves the first theory or hypothesis? what he/she means by "human evolution"?. What he/she means by "the end of the world". Is that what some religions are teaching. I don't think there are any scientific point for the "end of the world"
5- Also from where that human be characterised as "the most dominant creatures on the planet. "?
6- In what called theory two[i.e. hypothesis 2, I can not tolerate calling it theory]: "Humans have evolve thousands of times already". From where came "human evolved these many times?"
7- Getting smarter or the discoveries in science , exploration of space, building rockets, launching satellites, landing on the moon, sending robots to some planets can not be considered as "evolution". They are achievements, conclusions, deduction or engineering of our accumulated knowledge. They are mutual progress using our brains given to us and advantage knowledge stored in our brain or documented in books, magazines, research, theses etc.... Deduction theory from previous theories is not evolution but deductions.
8- Theory three or hypothesis 3 is an imagination that the Human will be wiped up "Humans will be wiped out before we have a chance to evolve. Like the dinosaurs lay live as the dominant creatures of the planet for millions of years." It is the poster who think that i.e it is his/her belief., expectation or imagination. .
9- Evolution is not science nor scientific theory : [Evolution Is Not Science Nor Scientific Theory: at: http://www.trap17.com/forums/index.php?sho...c=34318&hl= ] or
http://www.sedrak.trap17.com/evolution.htm
