Intelligence Overview

www.jimmyr.com/blog/IQ_tests_100_2006.php
IQ tests
. . . .
. . . .
Overview

IQ tests try to define a number to your intelligence, or lack of it. Many people think they're truly brilliant and want to be part of organizations such as MENSA, which is the spanish word for stupid in feminine form. IQ tests are psychology's biggest industry. 

Many people pay for others to tell them they're smart. It's kinda like a horoscope, only much more certified"/standardized. I had a fascination with puzzles when I was young. I would get IQ books and go through them slowly. The more I did this, the more I improved. 

Wow, my intelligence is getting higher as I learn to recognize more puzzle patterns. Big deal. That isn't intelligence. MENSA also accepts people with an SAT score greater than 1300. As has been well documented, it's a matter of preparation rather than inborn magic to get a good SAT score.
 
Online IQ Tests

If you go to any school, or any flaming forum, you'll find plenty of ego from people who took online IQ tests. Reports usually range from 135-160. I distinctly remember one moron to even claim he had a "history IQ of 225". Nick Jones, you're a moron. 

Sites like Emode/tickle and commercial IQ test sites offer a free test of simple, stupid questions of basic math and english then give you an IQ of 120-145. They give you titles and say what historical figure thinks in a similar fashion. 

For full details about your IQ(brilliance) you have to pay the low cost of 10-25$ normally. The answers are usually available in serveral internet forums by puzzle enthusiasts. Yes. People buy their intelligence. 

In a little piece of paper. Of course emode and other online IQ tests are the most unbiased sources of intelligence you've ever met. You'd still buy it if they called you a moron huh? You're obviously most like charles manson rather than Ben Franklin.Serious IQ tests go to 145. 

The IQ hype is highly speculative. Bobby Fischer and Kasparov claim their IQ to be 180-185. Chessbase itself, a stupid chessnews site had the nerve of asking: "Do Ashkenazi Jews, by virtue of their history, have higher IQs than the rest of society?"

Source: Chessbase

What is Real Intelligence

Some third world countries are reported to have people with lower intelligence. Around 70 or less. Not because they have stupider people, because many of the people don't know how to read and write and do not engage in mentally stimulating activities because of long work and family. Without using a number to define you, as sites like hotornot and ratemypic have shown people love, intelligence is actually the neural concentration in your brain. 

What do you think is genius? Awesome memory, good at puzzles, ability to read and go through tons of knowledge? Most of what people perceive as genius is simply discipline, and obsession to ideals. Speed math? Yeah you can get speed math, and speed reading too. Find tricks to memorize and read about intelligence from a newscientist article. Genius to me is the people who know what's really common and don't rely on others for validation and appreciation. 

People who act are rare, and people looking for some number, or norm to define them best are common. Neural concentration is correlated to stimulus. Use your brain more and have it become more active. It's that simple. Stimulate all 5 senses when you can and pay attention. Enrich yourself by learning mathematics and music theory, and local laws and rights so when things happen, you'll have a deeper understanding. 

When a chessmaster plays a game, and a beginner plays a game of chess, it's the beginner that actually is shown thinking harder, because everything is foreign. It's not how much you practice but also what you practice. If it doesnt feel uncomfortable and complicated, it's likely using much less brain activity. Make things complicated, and look further. 

The more familiarity you have with mathematics problems and the english language, the more you will increase your IQ, which invalidates the test to begin with. It's matter of effort and how much you can put into bettering yourself. Does your job really give you more skills everyday, or are you just in a cycle of busywork? 

Money is worth very little compared to time and intentions.Schools don't teach mastery, they teach short term memorization so the students are prepared to do busy work jobs. They're a creation for mass population efficiency management, so kids can have a place to go for a good while while parents are at work. 

If you ever get in an argument or start talking about intelligence, don't be all arrogant and prove your stupidity by throw out a number. Deh indernet says I smart at 155 IQ!! der der den they try to sell me my score. Point to something you can do, your education, or some accomplishment. If I took a poll where people said honestly what their IQ is, the average would be 140. 

So if you're going to brag, say it's 210 or something, which would be equivalent of genius once the IQ has been adjusted up to fit the average bragger scale. If at first you score low, try a different test. If you succeed tell your friends... and thus is the evolution of only the stupidest tests, getting popular.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.mythagora.com/essays/oracle.html
The Oracle at Delphi
. . . .
. . . .

There are a lot of interesting things in the press and on TV about the ancient Greeks and there are recurring references to the Oracle at Delphi . . . frankly, I don't like what I've been seeing and hearing. 

Perhaps a brief background of the Oracle at Delphi would be helpful: According to the Homeric Hymns, the Oracle was established by the god Apollon in prehistoric times . . . the mechanism of the oracle was really very simple . . . supplicants would go to the Temple of Apollon near the town of Delphi and ask questions of the Pythia, i.e. the priestess/medium . . . Apollo would speak through the Pythia and make the will of his father, Zeus, known to worthy patrons. 

The Pythia would traditionally give the prophesies of the god in hexameter poetry . . . the verses recited by the Pythia would usually be enigmatic, i.e. they were mysterious but not necessarily unfathomable. Assuming that you were coming from the city of Athens, in ancient times you would have had to make the seventy mile trek to Mount Parnassos either on foot, horseback or oxcart . . . you would pass the home of the Muse on Mount Helikon and then arrive at the entrance to the precinct of the Oracle at Delphi. 

The Temple of Apollon was your ultimate destination but certain preparations were required before you could approach the Pythia with your question. After your journey to Delphi, you would most likely want to enjoy the experience and take advantage of the events and ceremonies . . . there was a theatre for the performance of plays and an athletic field to watch a variety of physical contests . . . but, it would seem, one of the most enjoyable parts of your stay would be the camaraderie of the other pilgrims.  

The most important part of your visit to the Temple of Apollon was, of course, to see the Pythia and have your questions answered . . . at the entrance to the temple you would find an abbreviated shopping mall where you could purchase animals for the necessary blood sacrifice . . . venders would have small covered “booths” to display their wares and you could pick an animal that was appropriate to your budget and devotion. 

After the proper animal was selected for sacrifice, you would proceed to the foyer of the temple which was decorated with statues and other symbols representing the various gods and goddesses . . . prayers, meditation and the sacrifice would prepare you for your encounter with the Pythia.  

You would be escorted into the inner sanctum where the Pythia, if she chose to answer your questions, would recite a poem which would be recorded by a priest . . . the meaning or significance of the poem was not always apparent and in cases where groups of people or cities were involved, the Pythia’s answers were hotly debated until a consensus was achieved as to its “correct” meaning . . . individual people were left to decipher their own messages from Apollon. 

The modern skeptics and rationalists, who seem to dominate the media, don’t believe in prophecy . . . they don’t believe in the ancient gods and they view the citizens of ancient Greece as simpletons and dimwits.
. . . .
I personally find their skeptical and rational opinions lacking in human insight and ignorant of historical facts. The skeptics and rationalists indulge a form of selective amnesia and justify their all-knowing stance by pretending that all human experience is simply cause and effect . . .they seem to believe that all things are unquestionably physical, in the Newtonian sense, and any person who has a psychic or religious experience is a charlatan, a certifiable psycho or some sort of cult fodder. 

I have heard several infuriating explanations as to how the Oracle of Delphi “scammed” the ancient Greeks, Persians, Egyptians and Romans into believing that the prophesies of the Pythia were true . . . the skeptics say that the prophecies were nothing more than hit-or-miss generalizations, out-n-out lies or hallucinations . . . they believe that these meaningless prophecies were then interpreted to suit the predilections of the questioner and had nothing to do with actual prophecy or divine communication. 

One rationalized theory states that the Temple of Apollon was accidentally located at the intersection of several fault lines and fumes from under the earth seeped into the temple to make the Pythia hallucinate . . . the fume-induced intoxication would make her hear voices which she vaingloriously interpreted to be the voice of God. Another pseudo-rational theory assumes, without historical reference, that the Pythia would “babble” incoherently and that a priest would pretend to decipher her garbled prattle into a vague poem. 

Let’s be honest for just a moment . . . if you went to a modern fortune teller, would you feel like you got your money’s worth if the seer babbled and spoke incoherently? We’re not talking about vague or cleverly worded answers or non-committal generalizations, we’re talking about answers that are voiced in a language not known to human ears, i.e. true babble. Would you return to this babbling fortune teller time after time and keep paying to hear something that was obviously gibberish?  

Or, as at Delphi, would you walk or ride in an oxcart into the mountains just to hear babbling and pretend to be in communication with one of the gods? More to the point, would you jeopardize your kingdom or your fortunes on the words of a babbling woman and a priest who spouted poems with blurred meaning? 

A third way to explain the Oracle at Delphi is to simply dismiss the whole business as a fraud . . . the hard-core doubters contend that there was not even the pretence of a divine connection . . . the Pythia and priests would give the supplicants a load of garbage cloaked in rhyme and then laugh all the way to the bank. This cynical explanation is really no explanation at all . . .
. . . .
Those who actually profess this theory seem to believe that any sincere belief held by someone other than themselves is based on a lie and that their beliefs, regardless of how absurd they may appear to others, are to be accepted as the unquestioned truth. This perspective is quite sad and un-evolved . . . but, also sadly, not uncommon. I don’t accept any of these rationalizations . . . or, for that matter, any sort of “logical” explanation for the existence and success of the Oracle at Delphi. 

You have to remember that the Oracle was an accepted institution in the ancient world for well over a thousand years . . . the words of the Pythia were feared and respected in every ancient Mediterranean culture . . . wars were fought (and not fought) without hesitation when the Pythia spoke . . . kings and farmers were ardent believers in the veracity of the Oracle . . . treasures were given to the Temple of Apollon in sincere gratitude for the wisdom and guidance the Pythia provided. 

There is one documented case where the Pythia was bribed to lie . . . the traveler and historian, Pausanias, reported that, circa 505 BCE, the Spartan king, Kleomenes (Cleomenes) induced a Pythia to “adjust” her responses to suit his desires . . . the two kings of Sparta had always maintained the delicate balance of cooperation and antagonism but their differences were usually settled by the Spartan elders in accordance with their laws and for the good of Sparta rather than the benefit of any individual. 

While Kleomenes had been out of the city with his army, his co-king, Demaratus, began a slander campaign against him. Upon his return, Kleomenes, initiated a series of intrigues for the deposition of king Demaratus . . . he bribed the Pythia to frame her response in accordance with his plans and eventually had Demaratus replaced as king.  

Kleomenes then lapsed into a form of madness where he wounded and maimed himself with his own sword . . . since Kleomenes was no stranger to disrespectful behavior towards the gods, the root of his madness was variously blamed on his desecration of a precinct sacred to Artemis, his killing of supplicants seeking refuge in a sacred grove and, of course, bribing the Pythia. 

We are not told the fate of the Pythia who dishonored her position and lied in the name of Apollon but I think that we can assume that her fate was not quick or painless. I believe that women with psychic abilities from all parts of the ancient world were welcomed at Delphi where their phenomenal skills could be nurtured and honed . . . the best of the best were promoted to the rank of Pythia and became the voice of Apollon . . . in this capacity they would share their insights and prophetic visions with all sincere supplicants. 

One dominate feature of the Temple of Apollon at Delphi was the Omphalos . . . this was a conical stone that was said to be the Navel of the Earth. It is usually assumed that this meant that Delphi was some sort of geographic center of the earth’s landmass. 

Perhaps a more esoteric explanation would better suit the nature and function of the Omphalos . . . if we think of this enigmatic conical stone as a true navel we can easily make the connection between the offspring and the parent . . . if we consider ourselves the creations of a higher being, then we can visualize the Omphalos as the point where we were once connected to our parent/creator. 

The Omphalos was a point, a device, where the psychic Pythia could connect with her divine patron and learn the will of the gods. Can any of this be true? For an answer, you need to ask yourself several matter of fact questions:

1) Do you believe in prophets?

2) Has a prophet ever lived on this planet?

3) Has a prophecy ever been documented?

I would have to answer YES to all of the above and say without reservation that the Oracle at Delphi was real . . . the miraculous insights and prophecies attributed to the Oracle are true and anyone who says that they were phony or hallucinatory is to be pitied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.megasociety.net/noesis/186.pdf
The Cells of Problem 36
. . . .
. . . .
There is a sense in which it is impossible to receive a perfect score on the MegaTest. This is because the answer to problem 36 is not known. Ron Hoeflin will score a certain answer as correct even though he admits that he does not know if the answer is correct. His reasoning is that many of the top scorers on the test have given this answer and that therefore it is very likely that this answer is correct. However, this is not the usual standard for claiming to know a mathematical truth. 

Most philosophers define knowledge as, roughly, justified true belief. In other words, we know something if we believe it, if it is true, and if we are justified in our belief. There are Gedanken experiments that show that the issue of justification is subtle. Imagine for example that we claim to know that the Mona Lisa is in the Louvre. 

Suppose that the real Mona Lisa was switched for a copy last week, but the thief was nearly discovered and had to stash the real painting in a locker in the Louvre. Philosophers would argue that even though the Mona Lisa is in the Louvre, we do not really know this because we are not justified in the right way in believing it. It is true for reasons that are not related in the right way to our justification. One way to characterize this subtlety is to say that the justification must becausally related to the truth. In other words, the truth of the matter must have caused the evidence on which our justification relies. 

The fact that the thief was forced to leave theMona Lisa in a locker in the Louvre is mere happenstance, not causally related to our reasons for believing that the Mona Lisa is in the Louvre, which otherwise would have been incorrect. Therefore we do not know that the Mona Lisa is in the Louvre even though it is. The traditional form of knowledge in mathematics is the proof. 

We know something if we can prove it from a generally accepted set of axioms. This, of course, leaves open the question of what set of axioms we should use, but luckily there are several suggested sets of axioms that have been shown to be equivalent. This is not trivial, because there also have been some surprises, such as the independence of the Continuum Hypothesis from the remaining axioms of set theory. 

But there is no known proof of Problem 36. Over the years I have corresponded with many experts in this area of mathematics on this problem. Here is a typical exchange from 2005:

Dear Professor Hart,
An interesting problem is to find the maximum number of cells that can be formed from three interpenetrating cubes. The last time I looked into this and talked to a few people about it, about ten years ago, it was clear that no one knew how to prove this. Has anything changed in the last ten years? Do you know anyone who would know how to prove this?
Chris Cole

. . . .
Chris,
I don't think anyone knows how to solve a problem like this ingeneral. As a starting point, I would try the well known compound of three cubes, illustrated on the left tower of Escher's "Waterfall" and see how many cells it has, then see if a perturbation of the positions or orientations gives more cells. But I don't see a strategy for proving that a given arrangement is globally maximum.

See: http://www.georgehart.com/virtualpolyhedra/escher.html
George http://www.georgehart.com

. . . .
Thus we do not have a traditional mathematical proof that the Waterfall arrangement yields that globally maximum number of cells. We do not even have an approach to the problem. Nonetheless, Ron Hoeflin’s decision to score a certain answer as correct does not seem entirely nonsensical. Why is that? One recent trend in mathematics is to accept something as true if it is sufficiently likely to be true. One example of this trend is probabilistic primality testing. 

We do not have an efficient algorithm for testing whether a given number is prime, but we do have an algorithm that can test for primality to any given confidence level, say, one part in 10^ 500 . Since there are only 10^ 80 or so protons in the Universe, one could argue that a confidence level of 10^- 500 is good enough. After all, we cannot be absolutely certain that a proof does not contain a mistake, or even that the canonical axioms of mathematics are not flawed in some way. 

So perhaps this confidence level is good enough in the same sense that a cryptographic system is good enough if breaking it will cost more thanstealing the answer from the enemy. Unfortunately even this relaxed standard of mathematical knowledge does nothelp us on Problem 36, because the problem is so hard that there are no probabilistic results in the area. The problem is simply beyond the current state of the mathematical art.  

Nonetheless, there is a sense in which the answer is known, and this harkens backto the importance of causality. When this problem was posed on the Mega Test, a number of people worked independently on the problem. None of these people communicated with one another. They all came from different backgrounds and tried different approaches. 

As they worked on the problem, the nature of the problem itself caused them to seek out certain configurations. What Ron discovered was that as people submitted answer sheets, there was a general trend that the higher the score, the greater the number for cells found for Problem 36, up to the number that he now accepts ascorrect. There were exceptions to be sure, but this was the clear pattern. In using this standard of truth, Ron was following an emerging trend. For example, essentially all electronic security in the world today relies on a similar procedure. Cryptographic systems rely on oneway functions. 

It is not known if such functions exist, but cryptographic experts believe that they do because so many people have failed to find efficient algorithms to invert them. This belief is strong enough that trillions of dollars are trusted to it daily. So Ron is in good company. Ron can be viewed as a scientist observing an experiment. The nature of the experimental setup caused a certain behavior of the system. As evidence accumulated, Ron was justified in concluding that the correct answer to Problem 36 was the one that the system itself caused to emerge. 

This is perhaps an unorthodox definition of mathematical knowledge, but it is not foreign to methods of knowing in other scientific disciplines, nor is it philosophically unsophisticated. There are many experimental checks and balances. If the experimental result isrepeatable, then we can feel secure in concluding that it is very unlikely that nature has conspired to fool us. 

When two or more labs can replicate the same results, we tend tobelieve that hidden systematic biases have been eliminated as an explanation. There isalways the risk of confirmation bias, so we run double-blind experiments, which is what Ron did by keeping the answer secret. With enough confirmation our “hypothesis” becomes our “knowledge.”

Chris Cole
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApUl10UK5oYbZ2yDrZ.lykL4xQt.;_ylv=3?qid=20080321102445AAnQxzH
Evolution, Has It Stopped?
. . . .
. . . .
It is difficult for me to understand how many people attribute their disbelief in evolution to the fact that they have not witnessed it occur. Is it not possible that the development of medical technologies have practically brought evolution to a halt? How can the fittest survive when we have become a people that is so terrified about letting someone who wouldn't otherwise survive without medical services die? 

Some babies are born and wouldn't live without medical help. Those that would die, do so to prevent contaminating the population with weak genes. By the time we let everyone with major medical deformities live and reproduce, the entire population will be eventually carrying and displaying traits of those whom would have otherwise died from being weaker.

If the many species of humans that have been found from millions of years ago had not died off, wouldn't modern day humans be far different? Modern humans will not survive if we keep contaminating the gene pool.

Additional Details
 
We have no natural predators since humans as a whole control the environment they live in. Sure stupid people go and play with tigers and get eaten, yet I am talking of the majority. AIDS is not genetic, there will always be diseases but they don't carry through your genes. 

I understand that people will die in car accidents, or from AIDS. That is not the point. Someone who dies in a car accident is not effecting the future population by having been alive. Those people who are born and develop a dehabilitating problem that they otherwise wouldn't survive to reproduction age are the ones that I am talking about. 

If they are giving the ability to introduce the problem into the gene pool, and others have that gene, eventually it will become dominant. Recessive genes are not nearly as dangerous, it is the dominant onces that we have to worry about. 

We are going backwards in development of evolution. Since so many of the problems we allow include people who have problems with their minds, it will hurt us.People are already having educational problems. The United States has some of the worst schools in the world, hence why the government is trying to make children smarter with better curriculum. 

The advent of calculators and computers has taken away math skills of youngsters. It has also lead to many people writing without capital letters, or punctuation. Some letters people write are written like they are typing in a chat program. Autism is now being dealt with at the college level. If we all end up being autistic in 200 years, you think that we will be able to defend ourselves? By then we will be dependent on robots to survive, until they kill us all off.
. . . .
. . . .
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

By Astazang...
Evolution has not stopped, and humans probably will never stop evolving. First, selection is EXTREMELY efficient - it's far more efficient than we're able to detect through casual observation. E.g., if the difference in selection caused by a mutation amounts to only an advantage or disadvantage of 1 in 1000 births, this is VERY strong, and will almost certainly be fixed in the human population - but we would never notice such a difference in everyday life.

We can be sure that selection is going on all the time - the vast majority of selective events occur in utero, where the fetus spontaneously aborts due to some genetic abnormality. This happens all the time, and ensures that truly lethal mutations never even see the light of day. 

That's evolution in its most basic form.As for "positive" selection for beneficial adaptations - these are difficult to detect in a modern population (though not impossible if selection is sufficiently strong), but there's no reason why they wouldn't occur now, just as they occurred in the past. As I said, even selection of almost-invisible levels in terms of its effect on fitness has a very high probability of being fixed.Source(s): PhD in the subject.

Asker's Comment: You sound smart. I like the idea that the body does its own check for anomalies and aborts them before they full develop. That makes a lot of sense.
. . . .
. . . .
By Astazang...
It's not exactly a check for anomalies - if there is an anomaly, the fetus simply dies or does very poorly, and the body knows how to tell if the fetus is not viable.
. . . .
. . . .
By Alohmora 
Since it was formulated by Darwin in 1859, the theory of evolution has drawn the attention of scientists and the general public. Evolutionists, who took evolution for a scientific doctrine, have striven hard through research but have failed to support any of the assumptions on which it was based. It is not only the "ape-man" link that is missing, but indeed no other intermediate species in the long (imaginary) chain of evolution, starting from the simplest protozoa, could be identified. 

If evolution was ever possible, we should have now on earth billions of intermediary species, both in types and numbers. Also if such mutations ever occurred in ancient times, paleontologists should have found among the fossils countless traces of intermediary species. Paleontologists failed to find any. On the contrary, the oldest fossils of the Cambrian age earth strata proved that a wide variety of living organisms, that represent almost all basic animal divisions (phyla), appeared simultaneously, with no primitive predecessor. 

Complex living cells, not to say complex species, cannot form from their elements or components by mere chance; nor can they transform to higher-order species by random mutation as Darwin and followers postulate. Chemically, amino acids and other basic compounds cannot be artificially organized into the smallest unit of DNA. DNA, unique for each type of a living species, cannot be manipulated to produce the DNA of another species. 

Any such manipulation could only interfere with its functioning but not with its identity. Hence, genetically, evolution is basically impossible. Thermodynamically, all matter, if left alone, tends to get more disorganized. Hence, chemical molecules could not, on their own, combine to form the more complex organized structures such as a single DNA molecule. Similarly, the living cells of a species cannot spontaneously evolve into a more complex organized species. 

Natural selection, one of the pillars of the evolution myth, cannot produce a higher-order species from a simpler one. If a species fails to adapt to its surrounding environment, this would either lead to extinction or to modification of its behavior and function, but could never change its identity to another. Summing up, the long march of Darwinism, highly applauded by atheists and materialist cultures, has turned out to be pure dogma, far from being a possibility, much less a scientific fact. 

For almost a century and a half, this dogma, in the false cloak of science, has been captured by atheists and materialist philosophers who propagated its claims and strove to defend it and to turn around or hide its weaknesses until it infiltrated to school curricula, textbooks, and all sorts of mass media. As outlined above, true scientific research and thought have disproved every bit of the evolution doctrines. 

Nowadays, the significant number of scientists are creationists, in the sense that they realize and admit that the existence and functioning of the living biota could only be through an external Super Force. This Force works through its intelligence (wisdom), information (knowledge), will, and power. In contrast, human knowledge is limited to observing the structure and composition of living matter, but not how it was or can be created. 

Similarly, human intelligence can understand and correlate the properties and functions of the various life systems or components, but it can never explain why these systems and organs work in such way, nor can it enforce them to work differently or change their governing laws. Neither we nor any other lower-order living species has the power to implant the will in matter for it to become a single living cell, much less for it to evolve into a more complex creature:
. . . .
. . . .
By B.leggie
It is a good question, but I think you (and most people answering) have a wrong picture of what evolution actually is. Evolution is just the process describing the change in a specie over time due to selective pressure or random chance. It does NOT mean that evolution makes people stronger and stronger, or more and more adapt at surviving. 

Just change. Granted, normally natural selection would favor genes promoting a species fitness, but not necessary. The advances in modern medicine and social systems helping less fortunate people surviving has not stopped evolution (although possible slowed it down), but perhaps just changed its direction. There is a theory that our modern lifestyle indeed promotes a more weaker gene pool (in terms of genes that promotes or causes diseases for example), but this is still evolution, just in a sort of backwards direction from what we are used to think of. 

Humans have also changed the evolutionary pattern of some other species, to give you an example from some other species. It has been shown that certain fish population is going towards smaller and smaller individuals (instead of larger individuals, which normally would be favored), because these are the individuals not caught it the nets. This a good example showing that evolution do not have to mean stronger and better, just different. So would this be a problem? Yes and no, depending on how you view it. 

Certainly no one likes being sick, and diseases like cancer have increased a lot during the past hundreds of years, a change that can not only be contributed to increased age. And although environmental factors are likely to represent the most part of this increase, it is possible that genetic mutations promoting cancer has slowly been allowed to spread throughout the genepool. But would this really be bad if we can cure these diseases anyway? 

If humans do not need to be strong or healthy to survive and live good lives, is this possible consequence of modern medicine really a cause for concern? There are also some very controversial theories stating that humans are evolving to be more and more stupid due to select breeding. 

These theories state that since people tend to get kids with people from the same intelligence level, this will over time lead to less and less intelligent people (since intelligence is at least partially heritable), giving that most people are around average intelligence or under (it would also, according to this theory, lead to a smaller group of smarter and smarter people for the same reason). 

Like I said, this is a very controversial theory, that depends on facts that are not necessary true, and also next to impossible to prove, and whether it would be bad or not even if it is true is also something one could debate, but that I have no intention of doing here.I also like to point out that most of this is speculations. 

Evolution is hard to impossible to observe while it happens, since changes occurs in small steps over a really long time. You can use mathematic models to calculate the most likely outcome of certain traits impact on evolution, but they depend on a lot of uncertain factors and you can never know for sure what will happen.
. . . .
. . . .
By Angryman...
We call them idiots. Even the Catholic church recognizes evolution. Hell, I conducted experiments w/ E-Coli that prove it exists way back in H.S. Evolution is there to be seen, but these morons won't open their eyes. Look at the black population. 

They are more likely to display sickle cell trait. Why? Because this was a genetic advantage in areas plagued by malaria. Natural selection valued a defense against disease over the possibility of having full blown sickle cell. Now, the trait is a recessive gene that can easily be wiped by breeding with different genetic populations. EVOLUTION! Also, remember, it can take literally hundreds of generations to majorly transform a species. 

We don't reproduce quickly. Bacteria does. Thus, genetic mutation (evolution) will occur more quickly in lesser species. What makes you think that we allow people w/ poor genetics to breed? Have you ever been to a college town night club? They're meat markets. And with all that alcohol, genetics are all that matter.
. . . .
. . . .
By Anonymou...
Firstly I just want to say I completely disagree. Just because we as a society do not let those who 'should die' die does not mean we are stopping evolution. Evolution is a dynamic process and is happening all the time. When a weaker person survives they are not 'contaminating' the gene pool. 

Usually people stay with others that are like them the strong with the strong, the weak with the weak so I don't know where you got this ridiculous idea that just because lives are being saved that soon everybody will be 'contaminated'and even if people do procreate with people that are weaker (because maybe there's this little thing called love, and we don't just make babies for the sake of making super people) it still doesn't mean that those genes will get to everybody around us. 

Think about what you are saying. In order for what you are saying to be true, first of all there has to be tons of unhealthy people with genetic conditions and then all of these people go around raping everybody else so that 'contaminated' babies can be born and also not every condition that leads to death is a bad thing. Take sickle cell anemia for example, it is actually a good thing is some places of the world because it protects you from malaria. 

Hybrids with sickle cell anemia are best adapted to a place that has high risk of malaria. Things may change in the future and something that you think is 'contaminated' may prove to be an advantage. How do you think evolution even happens? It's because of gene mutations, and lastly, being physically strong is not the only measure of evolutionare humans strong at all compared to other animals? Long lived compared to plants? 

No, but we're kind of at the top of the food chain because of our minds and it is our minds that allow us to save these people and feel compassion rather than being animals who can think only of survival (that's not even true many, many animals also care for others in their group) so even if it is true that we are weakening our gene pool by saving people who ought to have died are we not growing as a society into better humans? 

The medical advances we have from trying to cure disease and illness has improved the lives of more people who do not have genetic diseases than the lives of people whose illnesses are genetic evolution doesn't always mean survival of the fittest or producing the physically strongest we can evolve and grow as a species without becoming heartless creatures
. . . .
. . . .
By Farful
Take a look at AIDS/HIV for example. There is currently no medical cure for it. We have three sets of humans. Those with HIV and never get AIDS, those who have HIV and get AIDS (and then soon die), and those who do NOT have HIV or AIDS. Perhaps humans are meant to evolve and eventually have HIV to be a part of us. And then, those who contract AIDS will die off, and those who never get AIDS will live with the HIV in them. Perhaps those with HIV that never get AIDS is the next evolutionary step for humans. Okay, this was an EXTREME example, but all I'm trying to say is... no evolution has not stopped
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Meta:Discussion/Off-topic
http://geekologie.com/
www.mmascraps.com/
http://www.nature.com./
http://dreamfighters.com/
www.physicsforums.com/
http://www.newscientist.com/
http://weirdspot.com/index.php
www.archure.net/minds/quotes.html
http://www.cerebrals.com/board/index.php
www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=1
http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/archive.html
http://www.trans4mind.com/personality/questionnaire1.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.see.org/e-ct-3.htm
The Game of Life
[....]

Happiness is clearly a fundamental value. It is almost axiomatic to many persons that being happy is the only purpose of life. Indeed some persons will say that it is impossible for human beings to choose anything except that which will make them most happy now or in the future. 

The most that we can hope for is that persons will engage in delayed gratification and recognize that ethical action is what makes us happiest in the long run. These are not easy arguments to counter. We begin by first noting that happiness and creativity are not mutually exclusive, although neither are they the same thing. Happiness is a subjective state of mind - an experience. 

Creativity is an objective action which changes ourselves and/or others and makes us collectively more intelligent. If we value creativity, being creative will, by definition, make us happy. However, it is possible to be happy without in any way being creative, in fact by being destructive through, for example, drugs, self-delusion, and for some through sadomasochism. 

We choose consciously or unconsciously the values by which we organize our life. If we choose happiness, we may be happy for a time, but ultimately it will lead to an empty, meaningless existence in which we constantly search for new ways to be happy as we satisfy all our desires. Ultimately the desire for desire becomes our overwhelming need and we end up frustrated and unhappy. The pursuit of happiness as an end in itself leads to unhappiness. 

Happiness is a self-contradictory goal. Ironically the only persons who are never unhappy are those who are fully committed to maximizing creativity, because this is an infinite desire which we can always be in the process of satisfying and which will always make us happy. 

To choose to maximize creativity will maximize both creativity and happiness. However, if we have truly made this choice, the happiness that results is merely a trivial side effect which we do not value. To choose to maximize creativity is an ethical choice which changes us forever. We then consider less and less our or anyone else's happiness in every choice we make.
. . . .
The question then becomes, Can we really make choices? Are we not bound in fact by deterministic laws? Is free will not, in fact, an illusion? Schopenhauer said: "We can always do as we will but we can never will as we will." Each of us is born to parents we did not choose in an environment we did not make. Every action we take, every choice we make, seems to be determined by the circumstances of our heredity and our environment. 

Therefore, free will may be an illusion. In the fifth chapter, "The New Synthesis," we will examine quantum mechanical reasons why free will may not be an illusion. There is, however, another way of looking at life which enables us not only to surmount the pessimism and fatalism of determinism but also to act creatively and purposefully in our life. This is by looking at life as a game. Life is a game in which we are both the pieces and the players. 

As pieces we are subjected to the determinism of the laws of nature as they alter our structure and impinge upon our body, brain, and mind. As pieces our actions are determined by events outside of ourselves. 

As players we partially determine our actions and modulate through our intelligence all the forces that act upon us. Through our creativity we alter the environment to suit our purposes. Whenever we are creative we are a player and not a piece in the Game of Life. Furthermore, the more we play the Game of Life the more we become players and the less we remain pieces. 

Eventually all players of the Game of Life begin to interact and to jointly maximize their intelligence and knowledge so that the universe is ever more under their control instead of it controlling them. Asymptotically, if we play the Game of Life, we become purely players and no longer pieces. 

Therefore, the Game of Life is a process that makes us ever freer as it makes us ever more creative. But we are never completely free, any more so than we are ever infinitely creative or infinitely knowledgeable. To grow forever in freedom and creativity as a species and to live on in the creativity we engender in others is enough to make some of us want to play the Game of Life. 

From these considerations, the evolutionary ethic, and the patterns of evolution we can derive the rules of the Game of Life. Remember, this is a game which anyone may choose to play or not to play. That is the ultimate freedom we have - to choose to play or not to play the Game of Life.
. . . .
RULES OF THE GAME OF LIFE
 
1. Each player must assume that he or she always has free will and is totally responsible for all of his or her acts and whatever happens to him or her.
2. Each player must do his or her best to make those choices and take those actions which will maximize creativity within the universe and to ignore all other considerations.
3. Each player must start the maximization of creativity with himself or herself.
4. Each player must eventually begin to think less about himself or herself and to seek to help maximize the creativity of others - this will in fact maximize his or her own creativity.
5. Each player must always remain open to the possibility that there are always an infinite number of alternatives by which he or she could have increased creativity more and that the universe may be structured very differently than he or she perceives it.
6. Each player should expect no other reward from playing the Game of Life than to have increased the creativity of others who play the Game of Life; this is what we win.
7. Everyone who plays the Game of Life wins.
8. Everyone who refuses to play the Game of Life loses.
. . . .
Human progress is engendered entirely by persons who play the Game of Life, although some play it better than others. Our Game-of-Life proficiency depends not so much on our intelligence as on our ability to overcome our natural desire for happiness and replace it by our just-as-natural desire for creativity, which in fact maximizes our happiness. 

Most of us can never completely give up our desire for happiness. This is what makes us unhappy as we play the Game of Life. Ultimately we achieve happiness by not pursuing it. We win the Game of Life by playing it as best we can, not by being perfect at it. Only total refusal to play the Game can defeat us. No one plays the Game of Life without choosing to do so. 

Those who choose to do so live on in the creativity they engender in others. Those who refuse to play the Game of Life become extinct. The Game of Life is the collective implementation of the evolutionary ethic which makes us ever freer and in control of the future. 

Civilizations are collective attempts to get others to play the Game of Life and to have a vision of the future that is not determined by the past. When we play the Game of Life each ethical action determines a new future. Each creative action is an unpredictable, non-predetermined, quantum event that is a result of a choice freely taken. 

The ultimate choice we have in life is whether to play or not play the Game of Life. No one can prevent us from playing or defeat us in the Game of Life. We can only prevent and defeat ourselves.

The Amplification of Intelligence

[....]

Human intelligence was first amplified by creating tools. This eventually gave the hominids Effectors (R) equivalent to or better than those of the most specialized animals without their having had to become specialized themselves. 

At first the amplification of human intelligence was limited almost exclusively to the Effectors (R). This is where humans were mostdefective relative to other mammals. With the beginning of group hunting and linguistic evolution, humans began to greatly amplify their Connectors (N), Memory (M), Logic (L), and Information (F). 

This is where humans were most defective relative to each other. Language serves as a social Connector (N) enabling Information (F) to flow between humans in a rapid and efficient manner. 

This is often a much more effective and general means of communication than by visual example or by crude reward and punishment, i.e., conditioning of desirable and undesirable behavior respectively. This latter type of communicative behavior exists among all mammals. 

But only humans systematically create languages. (The language of bees and many other animals is entirely instinctive and noncreative). There is a slight possibility that the languages of the dolphins and other cetaceans have creative elements, but no experiments so far prove this. 

The large brain of the dolphin is apparently a specialized organic computer for causing and interpreting sonar signals. Cetaceans have neo-cortexes comparable in complexity to those of humans, but the frontal lobes are less developed. 

They and other higher mammals such as primates and the elephants may have a rudimentary ethics. Language also provides an alternative means of storing Information (F) in terms of abstract symbols instead of visual images. 

In this way, through oral tradition, the cultural Information (F) of humanity could be passed from generation to generation in abstract form and not merely through visual representations. 

The oral tradition became the collective Memory (M) of humanity. The abstract formulation of extra-genetic Information (F) within the human nervous system also enabled humanity to introduce the rudiments of symbolic Logic (L) into its thinking processes and thereby amplified its genetically structured Logic (L). 

The neo-cortex, through the machine of language, was therefore capable of amplifying Information (F), Memory (M), Logic (L), and Connectors (N). In recent years there has been increased speculation about and growing interest in the alleged phenomena of extrasensory perception (ESP) in general and mental telepathy in particular. 

If these human capabilities existed and, more importantly, if they had survival value, they would have been subjected to natural selection in human evolution and we would communicate by mental telepathy and not by language. 

Furthermore, these alleged capabilities are of an organic nature and are not created; therefore, even if they existed they would represent an organic adaptation and not a psychosocial creation, which is the main trend in human evolution. 

By creating machines which amplify generalized intelligence through the unlimited growth in extra-genetic information instead of forming new organic structures which further specialized intelligence, the evolutionary potential of humanity is maximized. 

Through the continued evolution of the machine of language andother related interactive machines - writing, mathematics, printing, radio, computers, etc. - the collective nervous system of humanity is being created, making it possible for each person to have access to almost all the creative Information (F) which has been accumulated up to the present. 

The Sensors (S) are now being amplified by telescopes, microscopes, radar, television, seismographs, thermocouples, and remote electromechanical Sensors (S) sent to other planets and linked to earth by new mathematical languages and radio waves which are becoming the cosmic Connectors (N) of humanity. The primitive tools (Effectors) of the early hominids have evolved into space ships, nuclear power generators, and cities. 

These machines give humanity greater collective intelligence today than any speculated extrasensory power of 100 years ago. The machines of 100 years hence can create greater collective intelligence than the whimsical speculations of the advocates of ESP today. Since the beginning of group hunting and probably before, the direction of hominid evolution was toward the creation of collective human intelligence through the integration of persons, machines, and knowledge.

[....]