Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rackhir" data-source="post: 4483464" data-attributes="member: 149">The "Only Use 10% of the brain" theory was disproved decades ago. It's unclear exactly where it comes from, but seems most likely to be based on as scientifically valid information as Phrenology (ie. not at all).It is completely and totally incorrect to claim that living organisms "don't evolve". Pretty much by definition anything that is subject to survival pressures of any sort is going to be evolving at some rate. If only due to random mutations. Change might be slow, might be fast, but they are inevitably going to change to some degree. Crocs might be largely unchanged from what they were a couple hundred million years ago, but they are not identical and there is always a chance that something is going to happen that is going to force more significant changes or drive branches extinct. The mega crocs aren't around any more for example.You are getting the common english language usage of theory confused with the scientific meaning of the word "Theory". The word "Theory" in science is not simply an opinion or a guess. It isn't simply "I believe X". It's "I have facts x, y and z. Theory N, for reasons a, b and c, accounts for these facts and further more predicts h, k and j should be the case given Theory N". Theories are based in facts, attempt to explain why those facts are what they are and also generally attempt to make predictions that can be used to further test the theory. If it can't be tested, repeated and checked at least to some degree, its not a theory in the scientific sense of the word.For this reason, there is a vast difference between philosphy and science. In no small part because science deals with things that can be tested, repeated and verified. Where as philosophy is almost completely fact free.Actually this whole discussion does raise an interesting point though. IMHO, the really radical "evolutionary" step for man is that we have essentially gone from depending on "hardware" evolution (ie. physical changes) to "software" evolution (ie. ideas/technology based "evolution"). Software can change much more quickly and be spread far wider in a much shorter period of time than any physical changes. So in a sense shows like "Heroes" where everyone is manifesting "physical" changes is in a sense kind of a backwards step. While it might be cool that Nathan can fly, it's really not as flexible or as useful as aircraft are, nor as easy to change or adapt.</blockquote>

Verification