View Full Version : Humans killed Darwin (prepare for a long read).
These are just ramblings, the type where you've got loads of stuff in your head and can't type quick enough to get them all out, so apologies for the non-coherency.
Saw a programme last week about whether Darwin was wrong, pretty good, I thought it would be biased towards creationism but it went the other way and gave evidence to support Darwin, which is nice.
I can't believe anyone would think he was wrong, there's no way it CAN'T be right! I mean there's genetic difference in everything we see, no 2 animals on the planet are the same; 2 ants might look the same to us but they aren't identical, and that genetic difference means one gazelle might be 1/2mph faster than another and therefore live over it's counterpart, and that 1/2mph faster gene would be passed on. And let's not start saying genes don't get passed on and each offspring has it's own variables because that's just silly!!
So evolution must occur to some extent, and natural selection must exist to some extent, the question then is whether or not we can 'evolve' from single cells to what we know today. The programme said the biggest test is how an eye can evolve, because it's too complex to just appear on the next species. Some scientist dude showed a few animals with different levels of eye; mostly fish to start with, they basically had a dimple in their head with some photo-sensitive cells in the back of it. Next was a shutter that could open and close, and he again showed some animals that have a very basic retina, then there was a liquid filled lens in the back of the eye, which grew out and filled the eye cavity over time, etc etc. He went through the whole thing showing how each level was a small improvement over the last.
The other thing creationists seem to come up with is wings, how can a wing evolve? Well it could start as webbed hands and feet, the more webbing the more likely you are to evade prey. Maybe it was a creature that was already on land and sea, and the ones with bigger webbing on hands and feet started to jump and could 'glide' away from prey, then from there it's easy to see how it grows into a wing over time (just an example of how it could happen).
So, in my head Darwin is correct, I can see how it all could happen the way he thought, and it seems the most plausible explanation, but this got me thinking about humans. We are the only species (I think) who don't choose a mate by their strengths, ie: using instinct. In other species it's always the strongest or fastest or best looking partner that gets chosen, so the genes are always getting better and evolving, but humans don't choose a (long term) mate for their natural strengths, we go on personality and 'love', so essentially the human species is getting weaker all the time because the weak genes are being passed on as well as the strong. We also have offspring with people who aren't our long term mate, which is even worse, because at some levels in society there is pretty much NO selection process at all!! That's pretty scary.
So is it intelligence that causes this? Mother Nature has tried all kinds of things as weapons for her children; most notably large claws and sharp teeth are still the winners 'out in the wild', her next attempt was intelligence. Dolphins, apes, humans, etc. We obviously use intelligence to make us the strongest species, we make tools and weapons of our own (so does that mean shooting a Tiger is natural selection?), and we rely more and more on our inventions to keep us above the other things in nature.
There could be trouble ahead, if we're becoming weaker in terms of survival in the wild, we'll eventually rely completely on technology, what happens if it goes away? On the other side it could mean that technological advancement IS the next evolutionary step, and we are becoming stronger and evolving by adding technology to ourselves. What if that was the only way nature could get to the next level; by using humans as a stepping stone to technology and robots!!
All you need is love; the lower species have a higher ratio of instinct:intelligence, and they don't love. The more intelligent species such as apes, chimps, certain large pets etc do show love but still have strong instincts, then there's humans who have a high ratio of intelligence:instinct, and we are controlled by love, so what is love? Again, maybe nature knows that love is an unfortunate bi-product of intelligence, so robots are the way to go; loveless machines with ultimate intelligence to rule the world.
Also, does that blow creationism out of the water? Have a look at this story (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/index.html). What would a dog say if we showed him our CAD file of the complete designs for a car? Suppose there is a higher power with a better computer who input all the variables for the laws of physics and then 'designed' the big bang, he hits RUN and everything we know is created, including the ability to evolve.
Anyway, I'm running out of ramblings now, so there you go.
The film Wall-E has a lot to answer for, hasn't it! ;)
A very interesting read. I will look further :)
Haven't seen it. What's it about?
Quite an interesting read there.
I think you may only be looking at evolution one sided though.... Take the word "Evolution"....
any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
Now, in my opinion we have grown past the need to depend on the strongest or the fastest to evolve. That in itself is evolution. The ever evolving intelligence that you describe is, in my opinion, now the greatest evolution of mankind. Take man, before setting something on fire and wondering what a sabre tooth would taste like bbq'd, we were basically advanced apes; now our brains grow larger everyday as does the % of the brain we use.
I think i read somewhere that over the next century most of us will be using around 10% of our brain. Thats a big jump as i think its regarded as 7% just now. The big issue with measuring evolution over the past centuries is that it was always physical attributes that were measured. It has always been difficult to measure mental attributes as we didn't, and still don't, understand most of them. New theory's are coming out all the time, take autism for example.
To summarise I don't think our evolution has anything to do with the evolution of technology. However, the evolution of technology has everything to do with our evolution of intelligence. Evolution, for mankind, for the next while will be devolution of the physical aspects and growth of the mind/spirit/soul.
I enjoyed that, very interesting. Humans are evolving, whether they are weaker because they use technology more i couldn't say. Surely as human intelligence evolves then so too does our understanding of the world and how to best harness what it offers to meet our needs. 100% reliance on technology is a bad thing though and im sure it will bite us in the ass one day.
This is the intro to Idiocracy which hints on what you are talking about some NWS language.
C1sE1E3z7jU
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins does a pretty good job of explaining how evolution works. A long read, but interesting.
I still think theres a lot of instint going on in humans though; why do you fancy someone, you may think you know, but there are a lot of physical aspects that you're not concious of, yet play a big part in your decision making.
Modern medicine however, now that is weakening the species....How many diseases wouldn't exist, or we would be immune to if we didn't make cures? Granted, thousands would die to wean out the weak genes, but the theory's sound ;)
I think we're too clean though. Too much sterilisation, we're not building up the immunities that we used to. Kids should eat more mud. :)
Modern medicine however, now that is weakening the species....How many diseases wouldn't exist, or we would be immune to if we didn't make cures? Granted, thousands would die to wean out the weak genes, but the theorys sound ;)
I think we're too clean though. Too much sterilisation, we're not building up the immunities that we used to. Kids should eat more mud. :)
I agree with that!!
I'm also against a lot of medicinal cures, except the nasty illnesses like cancer cos noone should have to go through that!! My reasons are for overpopulation control though.
My reasons are for overpopulation control though
Legalise Chav hunting :p
Haven't seen it. What's it about?
An entertaining story of describing devolution in a way really. Relying on technology for virtually everything, plus a lot of other cute and funny stuff IMO. Highly recommended :)
Sorry for simplifying your interesting thread, but my friend and I used to have the most heated 'debates' about this. I was on the side of evolution (common sense), and he was on the side of creationism (!). Luckily for him, he split up with the JW girlfriend before it was too late ;)
Is the human race as a whole getting weaker? I don't know... but it does seem that those at the lower end of the evolutionary scale breed more...
Is the human race as a whole getting weaker? I don't know... but it does seem that those at the lower end of the evolutionary scale breed more...
As above....Legalise Chav hunting... :p
Is the human race as a whole getting weaker? I don't know...
Like Scott said, probably not, but in terms of "If we had all our technology taken away and were thrown naken into the wilderness, would we survive?", then I think we are getting weaker.
I'm not sure if that was what I was thinking when writing it or not.
"If we had all our technology taken away and were thrown naken into the wilderness, would we survive?"
But you would also have to take away our intelligence, or we'd simply re-invent again.
But you would also have to take away our intelligence, or we'd simply re-invent again.
Aah, but would we? Or more to the point, would we in the future?
Our technology, from making a fire to creating computers and buildings, has evolved with us. Will we get to a point where; if we were to be 'thrown out into the cold', we would not have enough physical ability to hunt and survive because we've been relying on technology to do it for us? We might be wiped out by bears and lions within a week!!
We started off as cavemen, still able to hunt and with primitive weapons and tools. In the future we might have primitive ability to hunt with clever weapons and tools.
Aah, but would we? Or more to the point, would we in the future?
Our technology, from making a fire to creating computers and buildings, has evolved with us. Will we get to a point where; if we were to be 'thrown out into the cold', we would not have enough physical ability to hunt and survive because we've been relying on technology to do it for us? We might be wiped out by bears and lions within a week!!
We started off as cavemen, still able to hunt and with primitive weapons and tools. In the future we might have primitive ability to hunt with clever weapons and tools.
Bear Grylls would survive, he's awesome.
Bear Grylls? Are they like Ostrich burgers?
We started off as cavemen, still able to hunt and with primitive weapons and tools. In the future we might have primitive ability to hunt with clever weapons and tools.
The lower end of evolution still think they can hunt, which is half the problem:rolleyes:
The problem is we're far too sympathetic to other humans.
We should leave anyone with disabilities, mutations, mental problems out in the woods to their own devices. Anyone that can't understand Parametric differentiation ought to be sterilised along with anyone without a symmetrical face.
Gattica anyone?
The problem is we're far too sympathetic to other humans.
We should leave anyone with disabilities, mutations, mental problems out in the woods to their own devices. Anyone that can't understand Parametric differentiation ought to be sterilised along with anyone without a symmetrical face.
Gattica anyone?
Well, here is the thing, I'm assuming that was in jest.... :)
BUT, it is true, humans are living longer, and in some cases people are out living their intended lifespan due to medical advances and the like.
In the normal balance of nature, the weak perish and the strong survive, that is how a species evolves. Something changes well those that can survive do and go on to breed, the weakness gets flushed out...
I realize fully that I probably should have been dead years ago following that theory but there is some sense in it I feel.
I think that there is a trade off here.
The more intelligent we become, the weaker physically we'll be IMO. How many people here are as physically fit as they would like to be?
If the world's 'lights went out', then I think as a species we would survive, but as its been previously pointed out, it would be the 'fittest', or the most resourceful, that survive not necessarily the most intelligent. Maybe ;)
I think that there is a trade off here.
The more intelligent we become, the weaker physically we'll be IMO. How many people here are as physically fit as they would like to be?
If the world's 'lights went out', then I think as a species we would survive, but as its been previously pointed out, it would be the 'fittest', or the most resourceful, that survive not necessarily the most intelligent. Maybe ;)
Intelligence doesn't equal survival... If you look at so called lower life forms, they reproduce in high numbers to ensure the survival of a few... Our intelligence has resulted in a specialization where we are reliant on others to survive, also our bodies have adjusted to our technology dependance. How many people go on holiday and end up with the dia^H^H^Hshits purely because their body can't handle foreign food which isn't posionous either.
As you say it would be the 'fittest' that made it, ie those who can adapt quickly to the change.
I for one would welcome our alien overseers :)
willismaximus
24-07-08, 13:36
Well even in more recent history (And i use the term very loosely as i'm talking in the last thousand plus years here) mankind has evolved physically, case in point, Medieval Britain, the avaerage height of an adult male was around the 5ft-5ft.4" hence why if you ever visit medieval castles/ruins etc the doorways always seem a little low for a 6 footer like me as they weren't designed for someone as tall as me to walk around comortably. We were also becoming more slender as a species with a larger cranium in comparison to the shorter stockier human figure of yesteryear although this is no-longer as apparent due to the issues we have with processing cr@p and eating it thus causing our little obesity problem these days.
Nature must have decided we needed these traits or why else would we have evolved that way but it does make you wonder where natures going with it, i imagine the larger head is simply to house our growing intellect (Although the charva's ability to constantly keep spawning may begin to combat this and devolution could be iminent unless we get them under control and neuter the lot of them). But why were/are we getting taller and slimmer? :search:
In the normal balance of nature, the weak perish and the strong survive, that is how a species evolves. Something changes well those that can survive do and go on to breed, the weakness gets flushed out...
This is only our understanding/interpretation of how a species evolves. In actual fact evolution isn't getting stronger or faster, its getting better and more suited to life and your surroundings.
If we were dropped in the woods, yes many would perish and the fastest runners would survive. We would then need to evolve to adapt to that situation. We would call that devolution but its all evolution in reality.
Apologies for all the commas in my previous statement. I'm trying to adapt to the change already ;)
How a species survives is down to evolution, whether a species survives is down to how fast you can evolve and adapt to a situation.
Like old Red said, "Get busy living or get busy dying"
If we were dropped in the woods, yes many would perish and the fastest runners would survive. We would then need to evolve to adapt to that situation. We would call that devolution but its all evolution in reality.
Ooooh, nice, let's kick it up a gear...
Would you be prepared to eat a fellow homosapien (For the sake of this point, lets assume he/she was dead already), in order to survive in this 'lights out world'. Me? Don't see a problem with it. (Lets see where this goes now :))
willismaximus
24-07-08, 13:44
P.s.
Although we always assume we are getting weaker due to our dependancy on technology etc.... it seems to be that we seem to keep getting physically stronger but our immune systems are getting weaker, look at strongmen programmes, sports, olympics etc, the capabilities of our bodies are fine tuning in that sense so that records are consistantly being broken year on year but our immune systems seem unable to cope without medicinal assistance that we didn't used to need to fight off infections etc case in point, anti-biotics have never been as needed as they are now but the irony is that our bodies are adapting to our own cure so that they are now not as effective as they once were.
Ooooh, nice, let's kick it up a gear...
Would you be prepared to eat a fellow homosapien (For the sake of this point, lets assume he/she was dead already), in order to survive in this 'lights out world'. Me? Don't see a problem with it. (Lets see where this goes now :))
I'd eat a human. Not a Chinese or Indian though. I don't like foreign food. :d
willismaximus
24-07-08, 13:46
If i'm hungry, i'll eat, no point in being malnourished thus lowering my immune system and making my own death more likely just because it may be a little gross.
Ooooh, nice, let's kick it up a gear...
Would you be prepared to eat a fellow homosapien (For the sake of this point, lets assume he/she was dead already), in order to survive in this 'lights out world'. Me? Don't see a problem with it. (Lets see where this goes now :))
Now this has opened it up hasn't it? Just the mentioning of 'she' in that statement will set Ed's radar off!
If you had to, to survive you'd have to consider it, but only if I had some barbecue sauce, oh and a knife and fork, and a nice napkin. :)
EDIT: Commatastic!
I'd eat a human. Not a Chinese or Indian though. I don't like foreign food. :d
:D I do though ;)
RiceRocket
24-07-08, 13:49
Ooooh, nice, let's kick it up a gear...
Would you be prepared to eat a fellow homosapien (For the sake of this point, lets assume he/she was dead already), in order to survive in this 'lights out world'. Me? Don't see a problem with it. (Lets see where this goes now :))
Would sir like some gluteus maximus?
Would sir like some gluteus maximus?
Don't be so cheeky.
willismaximus
24-07-08, 13:51
Would sir like some gluteus maximus?
He's not eating my a$$.... :blink:
He's not eating my a$$.... :blink:
Or stuffing it either!
So I assume that adaptation is the pre-cursor to evolution then?
Ooooh, nice, let's kick it up a gear...
Would you be prepared to eat a fellow homosapien (For the sake of this point, lets assume he/she was dead already), in order to survive in this 'lights out world'. Me? Don't see a problem with it. (Lets see where this goes now :))
Honestly, i would have absolutely no problem. In fact, being true to the situation, i would kill to survive.
Noone really knows what they would do in a situtation, until they are actually in it, but i think the fact that i know i would be fine with doing certain things shows what i would most likely do lol.
I would have to cook them though, i've heard it tastes like chicken.
Instinct has been dulled down over the years but man still has them. For example, how many men have the inbuilt instinct to "spread the seed"?. Its a fact that even faithful men stray in their mind. Girls do it in a girly way but its a constant struggle in a mans head, the faithful ones are the ones with a will strong enough to overcome the instinct.
Thats another discussion though lol
willismaximus
24-07-08, 14:20
We should ask those countries suffering from famine where they stand on the issue and if they're ok with eating people, we could just send them regular stock of Chavtastic meat, think about it, the bugg3rs breed so quickly it's a self sustaining food source and we'd also be helping to cull the deadweight from the species at the same time.... it's a win/win sitaution really just so long as the people doing the eating can put up with the faint wiff of B.O. and Burberry coming from there food.... :d
It's a good idea, and we could take it even further and just carve up all the major criminals and anyone else who's just a useless waste of resource.
I'm not sure people would like buying half a Kg of minced murderer though, unless it's for the dog.
dude... there are massive holes in Evolution! what you said about to things being different, gazelles beign 1/2 mph faster than another kinda leans more to the point that "isnt that a bit to coincidental that they evolved suddently like this". im not sayin that creatures and things dont evolve but not in a evolutional theory way if you catch my drift. now i have studied both sides and the first thing is this..
you have to beleive that there was NOTHING that COLLIDED with SOMETHING to create a big bang and then evolution took place. you have to BELEIVE in the fact a MAN came up with the idea that it works this way.. so wheres the different in people and me beleive in a God that created things..its crazy cos people have issues with the fact a God my make things yet u beleive in evolutionism. you cant necessarily prove it.. just as much i cant prove God exists without you having a little faith. So it completely irrelevant. people only tend to beleive in evolution cos its a much easier concept to understand.
thank you im here all week.. try the fish.
willismaximus
24-07-08, 14:28
LOL i'm sure my dog's would love it, convict flavoured Pal etc....
And it would all help with getting the evolution of the species back on track
I wish I was 'weak' enough to give into my instincts :eyebrows:
It's a good idea, and we could take it even further and just carve up all the major criminals and anyone else who's just a useless waste of resource.
I'm not sure people would like buying half a Kg of minced murderer though, unless it's for the dog.
Thats a bit of a cliche right there - would George Boost and most of the folk thats in Power be on that list?
If we are taking a step back to look at things here then you will see that we haven't evolved that much in terms of poweress,
We have always had leaders, they have got to power in different ways, out of fear, telling a few mystical stories, promising things that they can't deliver, they are criminals in my mind,
Although not directly associated with Killing, they are responsible for a lot more lives than any of the 'major criminals'
willismaximus
24-07-08, 14:39
dude... there are massive holes in Evolution! what you said about to things being different, gazelles beign 1/2 mph faster than another kinda leans more to the point that "isnt that a bit to coincidental that they evolved suddently like this". im not sayin that creatures and things dont evolve but not in a evolutional theory way if you catch my drift. now i have studied both sides and the first thing is this..
you have to beleive that there was NOTHING that COLLIDED with SOMETHING to create a big bang and then evolution took place. you have to BELEIVE in the fact a MAN came up with the idea that it works this way.. so wheres the different in people and me beleive in a God that created things..its crazy cos people have issues with the fact a God my make things yet u beleive in evolutionism. you cant necessarily prove it.. just as much i cant prove God exists without you having a little faith. So it completely irrelevant. people only tend to beleive in evolution cos its a much easier concept to understand.
thank you im here all week.. try the fish.
Not to sound like i'm having a go here because i'm really not, i'm a firm believer that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but i just want to explain why i give the whole evolution thing credance over Creationism.
We can see the evolution off human kind as a species over the last couple of thousand years because we have the bones and remains of early man right through to modern day man to study, we can see by the genetic structure as well as the more basic appearance that we have gradually straightened our backs and over time increased our skulls inner capacity first by thining the actual bone of the skull to allow more space inside as we slowly had less and less chance of being hit in the head with a club etc and then by our craniums growing slightly larger again in general, we can also see that we have gotten taller and taller as the generations have passed.
For me it's things like this which i see as actual tangible proof which sway my desicion on the topic (Although i am aware that this is simply my opinion and one mans proof is another mans poppycock).
But that's where i stand with it.
hey dude and thats tottally cool and everything and of course everyone is entitled to their opinion thats best thing bout being human,.
however, my real point is that at the end of the day.. we can throw facts around until the cows come home but the point is that ... you personally have to beleive that this true.. its not necessarily true just cos we can see it.. your not looking a actually fact ur looking at findings that a scientist or historian as put together. So you beleive in a smthing you cant really prove.. just as much as i do in God.. but u have faith in that. So at the end of the day we all beleive in smthing.. hell even atheist beleive in smthing.. or at least they say they dont beleive in God but they have to beleive in God for them not to.. pardox anyone?
hey dude and thats tottally cool and everything and of course everyone is entitled to their opinion thats best thing bout being human,.
however, my real point is that at the end of the day.. we can throw facts around until the cows come home but the point is that ... you personally have to beleive that this true.. ...or at least they say they dont beleive in God but they have to beleive in God for them not to.. pardox anyone?
I've cut a lot out so apologies...
By definition a fact is something that can be proven is it not? The sky is blue (by our definition of what the colour blue is), that is fact, it can be verified and support by multiple people and scientific equipment.
I am a firm believer that 'God' does not exist in the form that most people perceive, that isn't a fact that is just an opinion :) I personally think it is all just a big experiment. Seriously though, I don't believe modern mythology, however is there a possibility that there is a more superior life form, I'd bloody hope so because if we are the cream of the crop the rest of the universe is absolutely bollocksed.
Don't know if I agree with your paradox though... You are saying for someone to say it doesn't exist they have to believe it does?? don't follow.
HAHA thats great quote!
" if we are the cream of the crop then the universe is B*ll*ked! lol love it!
at this rate of "global warming" we all dead in like 4 years anyway! damn better give u driving my supe....er no mr government i dont give into your properganda! tax money grabber heheh
I've cut a lot out so apologies...
By definition a fact is something that can be proven is it not? The sky is blue (by our definition of what the colour blue is), that is fact, it can be verified and support by multiple people and scientific equipment.
I am a firm believer that 'God' does not exist in the form that most people perceive, that isn't a fact that is just an opinion :) I personally think it is all just a big experiment. Seriously though, I don't believe modern mythology, however is there a possibility that there is a more superior life form, I'd bloody hope so because if we are the cream of the crop the rest of the universe is absolutely bollocksed.
Don't know if I agree with your paradox though... You are saying for someone to say it doesn't exist they have to believe it does?? don't follow.
willismaximus
24-07-08, 14:55
I see your point, and you're right, it is all about faith. My faith is in the scientific side of things where as your's follows the Religeous side.... who is right? Who's to know. I suppose we are both right, because we both have faith in our own explanation and neither can really prove the other wrong without holes in their argument. I'm not sure if you can ever truly have someone who is not at all biased in some way on this sort of subject to make an informed decision either because it's one of those where you either believe one or the other, there doesn't seem to be any other explanations available unless you believe the rumours that we were created by frogs for their own personal amusement and in reality we are mere playthings to their every whim..... (Think i've had too much caffiene :blink:)
Okay.. I'd like to say both sides are right...
Faith is based upon interpretation of human observed events, so is science. Faith'ists (new word there :)) accept things more readily whereas scientists require emperical proof... well that is the idea anyway, HOWEVER it isn't as black and white as that, since science often requires faith and assumptions which are then proven to be true or false. My whole reason and I'm happy to state it, behind not being a faith'ist is I feel it has been twisted to suit the goals of whomever and absolute devotion without question, science relies on the fact that things are questioned.
If I'm wrong I guess I'll understand heat transfer much better down stairs :)
dude... there are massive holes in Evolution! what you said about to things being different, gazelles beign 1/2 mph faster than another kinda leans more to the point that "isnt that a bit to coincidental that they evolved suddently like this". im not sayin that creatures and things dont evolve but not in a evolutional theory way if you catch my drift. now i have studied both sides and the first thing is this..
you have to beleive that there was NOTHING that COLLIDED with SOMETHING to create a big bang and then evolution took place. you have to BELEIVE in the fact a MAN came up with the idea that it works this way.. so wheres the different in people and me beleive in a God that created things..its crazy cos people have issues with the fact a God my make things yet u beleive in evolutionism. you cant necessarily prove it.. just as much i cant prove God exists without you having a little faith. So it completely irrelevant. people only tend to beleive in evolution cos its a much easier concept to understand.
thank you im here all week.. try the fish.
Man came up with the theory of god as well though, there just aren't as many people buying it anymore. The big bang is all theory and absolutely nothing to do with the evolution of man. Life started on earth billions of years after the big bang, according to the theory anyway.
The question that has always been asked is about the jump from single cell to multiple cell organism's. It can happen and does happen over millions of years of evolution, the big question is why it happened so quickly all those years ago. I can't remember the figures used but if it should take 100 million it only took 5.
Anyway, the theory of evolution is completely different from actual evolution. There is no theory on evolution, its our way of describing adapting to surroundings. Darwin's theory of evolution is as TB put it and what u have a gripe with.
Ask yourself though, what makes more sense:
A thing makes a guy then uses a rib to make a girl
or
We started off as apes and adapted.
or the Men in black theory where i universe is in a marble and we are just in a massive game of Marbles with giant aliens..
at least its better than scientology (this being the hollywood faith- it grinds my gears)
seriously tho its good to see that people can see both sides.. i think again we wont know till we die.. so all we can do is drive our supes!
mate i dont even have to think.. il go with God made World God made Man, God use dust and Rib to make Girl..
apes..nah your okay mate.. whcih is funny cos ur thinking im weird for think my reaseon and i think ur nuts for thing about apes lol! why apes.. we alreadly know that humans have similar characteristics to other animals.. but apes are purely the closes feature wise.
but if ape comes a man let me know and youve got my vote.
you have to BELEIVE in the fact a MAN came up with the idea that it works this way.. so wheres the different in people and me beleive in a God that created things..
The difference is you believe god created it all, whereas believing a man can work out what happened is a bit easier to do, I dont believe a single man made the big bang, just had an idea and it fits the facts.
Anyway, why can't we believe in both? I do! See my last paragraph in the original post, I believe that. I think there is a higher power who was mucking about on his PC one day, making up little programmes and picking random laws of physics out of the air, then with one of these programmes he finally cracked it, all the random variable that are so unlikely to have come together, did! Well he is a higher power after all how hard can it be to create the laws of physics (and all other laws we don't know about yet).
So he hits the 'run' button and KABOOOOOM the big bang just.... sort of..... happens....... from nowhere!! Then evolution kicks in and here we are.
Maybe it's his science project for school and he's got to write a report on how long each species lasts, in relation to their 'natural strengths'. :D
Okay, since I'm in a thought provoking mood today :) I pose this statement.
Science and religion try and provide answers for one simple question; Why are we here.
So, why are we here? I honestly can't think of any decent answer.
willismaximus
24-07-08, 15:08
Think JustGav nailed right on the head there for me.
I like to question everything, always have always will and that's probably why my view is what it is on this debate because as a kid at school and in church (Catholic school so i had no option.... don't like that either, i should be allowed to choose what i believe rather than have it thrust upon me) any answers i got to questions based around Religeon always seemed to end up posing more questions that couldn't be answered, that's just how i felt about it anyway.
Is Firestorm the new DA? ;)
Okay.. I'd like to say both sides are right...
Faith is based upon interpretation of human observed events, so is science. Faith'ists (new word there :)) accept things more readily whereas scientists require emperical proof... well that is the idea anyway, HOWEVER it isn't as black and white as that, since science often requires faith and assumptions which are then proven to be true or false. My whole reason and I'm happy to state it, behind not being a faith'ist is I feel it has been twisted to suit the goals of whomever and absolute devotion without question, science relies on the fact that things are questioned.
If I'm wrong I guess I'll understand heat transfer much better down stairs :)
Science doesn't involve faith Gav, it involves probability. Theory's come from the most likely outcome and the most likely explanations.
Lets put it this way, i can't give credit to a name but, a guy took a yard stick, stuck it in the ground and calculated the circumference of the earth to within something ridiculous like 3m using only the sun because he had a theory. Now, "riddle me this batman", how do we know he was within 3m? Has someone actually went round the earth with a measuring tape?
A lot of facts come from theory's that are never actually proven, just backed up ;)
BTW i'm backing what u say in this one as heaven, god, hell and all that baloney make no sense to me. The only sense religion ever made to me was power. If there is a god, a supreme being, an almighty presence, do you think he would want worshiped? Of course not. Its all about power and always will be about power. If you want to have faith in god, hell, heaven and all that then great. But why does there have to be rules involved?
Think JustGav nailed right on the head there for me.
I like to question everything, always have always will and that's probably why my view is what it is on this debate because as a kid at school and in church (Catholic school so i had no option.... don't like that either, i should be allowed to choose what i believe rather than have it thrust upon me) any answers i got to questions based around Religeon always seemed to end up posing more questions that couldn't be answered, that's just how i felt about it anyway.
I was fortunate to have a rather odd childhood, in that I went to a Catholic school, a Jewish school, had CoE parents, and Muslim friends. My religious education at the catholic school last 1 week before I was told not to attend the class and that I could use it as study time. Like yourself I asked lots of questions and wasn't satisfied with the simple answer 'God created everything', I choose to look elsewhere for a reason for existance and to this day I'm still no wiser.
Science doesn't involve faith Gav, it involves probability. Theory's come from the most likely outcome and the most likely explanations.
Lets put it this way, i can't give credit to a name but, a guy took a yard stick, stuck it in the ground and calculated the circumference of the earth to within something ridiculous like 3m using only the sun because he had a theory. Now, "riddle me this batman", how do we know he was within 3m? Has someone actually went round the earth with a measuring tape?
A lot of facts come from theory's that are never actually proven, just backed up ;)
Perhaps the wrong usage of the word faith, I was attempting to suggest that scientist need to take a gamble on a theory (ie have faith in their theory)... bit abstract I know for 15:15... god^h^h^h(suitable higher power entity of your chosing :)) damn I need to get out and fly my kite
PS : no offence taken, I do enjoy this sorts of adult debates because they help excersize the mind and also sometimes close the gap between faithists and scientists because their goal is one and the same really.
Okay, since I'm in a thought provoking mood today :) I pose this statement.
Science and religion try and provide answers for one simple question; Why are we here.
So, why are we here? I honestly can't think of any decent answer.
42.
(Somebody had to say it!) :)
PS : no offence taken, I do enjoy this sorts of adult debates because they help excersize the mind and also sometimes close the gap between faithists and scientists because their goal is one and the same really.
Yup me too, its hard on a forum though as i jump and blurt out whats in my head a lot of the time i come accross as argumentative lol. I think in most of my quotes i am backing what the person is saying with my thoughts, although it comes out wrong lol.
Faithists, scientists.. big thumbs up. Like yourself i am a big supporter for open mindedness and allowing people to make up their own mind.
Religion massive thumbs down. Why is it that people aren't allowed to make up their own mind? They are told they are wrong without even so much as a reason other than "because god said so".
New DA? what? lol confused
let me first off say yes! i can tottaly understand why people see religion as money grabbing power inducing etc etc! cos for the most part IT IS! HOWEVER
when i cut through all the Cr*p i find a solace that i beleive and it helps me on a day to day basis. im not religious. but i have a faith. i hate people who stand on street corners and shout your gonna go to hell just as much as islamic terrorists.
i do have friends who beleive God created the Big Bang cos he could soo yeh thats alwasya theorey.
ooh i do love to a good debate
people are still missing my u can throw millions of stuff at me cos but have you ever actually done the tests? probably not.. you just beleive.. i think it wront to assume humans invented God cos you cant prove that either...
the reason i think we are here.. simple.. Free Will
Is Firestorm the new DA? ;) At least I could understand what DA was saying. Firestorm doesn't seem to be able to write a legible post.
New DA? what? lol confused
let me first off say yes! i can tottaly understand why people see religion as money grabbing power inducing etc etc! cos for the most part IT IS! HOWEVER
when i cut through all the Cr*p i find a solace that i beleive and it helps me on a day to day basis. im not religious. but i have a faith. i hate people who stand on street corners and shout your gonna go to hell just as much as islamic terrorists.
i do have friends who beleive God created the Big Bang cos he could soo yeh thats alwasya theorey.
ooh i do love to a good debate
people are still missing my u can throw millions of stuff at me cos but have you ever actually done the tests? probably not.. you just beleive.. i think it wront to assume humans invented God cos you cant prove that either...
the reason i think we are here.. simple.. Free Will
I can prove that humans invented the theory of god. I'll prove it to you right now with a simple question.
How did you learn of god?
Now, take that question and put yourself into every person in the world's shoes and show me someone who, honestly, doesn't say they learned of him through someone else. If noone can prove god exists, then god is a theory.
Correct?
yeh sorry ther mate im not 52 i grew up with technology! blame that grandpa! LOL
At least I could understand what DA was saying. Firestorm doesn't seem to be able to write a legible post.
yeh but thats like saying how do u know evolution exists cos u got told it. its null and void. we had to learn it sumtime.. jus cos man told it doesnt make it true. i guess that works both ways mind.
There's evidence of evolution, there's no evidence of god.
yeh sorry ther mate im not 52 i grew up with technology! blame that grandpa! LOL You grew up with technology? What has that got to do with you not being able to write properly?
You write like a four year old. I guess technology can't help you with that though.
there is speculation of evolution.. no one can prove it.. just like your saying you cant prove God.. thats faith dude.
ooh ouch..
You grew up with technology? What has that got to do with you not being able to write properly?
You write like a four year old. I guess technology can't help you with that though.
There's evidence of evolution, there's no evidence of god.
We have a winner! Well said that man :)
yeh but thats like saying how do u know evolution exists cos u got told it. its null and void. we had to learn it sumtime.. jus cos man told it doesnt make it true. i guess that works both ways mind.
As i said, evolution is completely different from the "theory of evolution". Evolution is a description of life adaption. Its a fact, we have seen it happen over the centuries, there is (as above) proof through different families of animals.
Have u seen a mammoth? You don't think thats a descendant of an elephant? Why do you think we are getting less hairy? Same reason as the heffalumps... evolution.
Now, the theory of evolution (take that as the one word) is a completely different thing. Its a theory that has not been proven and has a lot of assumptions being made.
Theory of evolution = Charles Darwin
Actual Evolution = Fact
God? Evolution?
We'll have no trouble here!
The Sky Daddy made us.
Fact.
cool okay lets say the theory we are talking about
i did say earlier that i didnt deny that.. growth i guess would be called evolving.. or a bud to a flower it evolves for that. i guess my particular debate lies with mr darwin.
ooh edit post here.. did anyone know that Darwin Denounced his theory towards the end of this life.. well thats what ive been told :P
As i said, evolution is completely different from the "theory of evolution". Evolution is a description of life adaption. Its a fact, we have seen it happen over the centuries, there is (as above) proof through different families of animals.
Have u seen a mammoth? You don't think thats a descendant of an elephant? Why do you think we are getting less hairy? Same reason as the heffalumps... evolution.
Now, the theory of evolution (take that as the one word) is a completely different thing. Its a theory that has not been proven and has a lot of assumptions being made.
Theory of evolution = Charles Darwin
Actual Evolution = Fact
cool okay lets say the theory we are talking about
i did say earlier that i didnt deny that.. growth i guess would be called evolving.. or a bud to a flower it evolves for that. i guess my particular debate lies with mr darwin.
Which brings me back to my prior point between scientists and faithists (is that a word?)
Anyway, there is a big difference between blind faith and theoretical faith.
I would describe people who believe in god as having blind faith. Now, there are good reasons to have that faith but they are all selfish reasons to make the individual feel better about any given situation. Death and heaven being the prime example.
Everyone is told there is a god from an early age. Everyone is told there is a santa clause from an early age. Saint Nicholaus was an actual guy, German i think, he was preached about in sermon's not so many years ago until christmas really took off (pre 60's i think). Santa was overtaking God in many childrens imagination so he is now no longer referred to in religious cermon's. If your interested i can tell u the true story of Saint Nicholaus, there are a few stories that go around but only 1 or 2 that are believed to be true.
Now, scientific theory is a whole other ballgame. Theory is built up on pieces of information. I'll give a simple example. What has four legs, a tail and barks? Obvious answer is a dog, without knowing its a dog its a theory or what scientists call an "educated guess". The reason its a theory or an educated guess is you have to learn what has four legs, what has a tail and what barks. If you were asked, what has four legs there are many theories but the answers are still based on fact.
Have u seen a mammoth? You don't think thats a descendant of an elephant? Why do you think we are getting less hairy? Same reason as the heffalumps... evolution.
I did like that statement :)
I don't know the whole reason why we're less hairy than our furry ancestors, but maybe clothing has something to do with it. :search:
I don't think the same applies to elephants really. Unless you've seen a clothing range for our rather large cousins? ;)
Evolution is a fact.
However Darwin's, "Survival of the fittest" Theory of Evolution is a bit shaky, as it relies on "random mutations" to provide the evolutionary changes. I believe that many mathematicians have looked at this and actually concluded that it is statistically virtually impossible for evolution to have occurred as documeted (through fossil records, genetic observation, viral adaption) purely through random mutation.
The problem is that creationists use the holes in the random mutation theory to denounce evolution as a whole.
Personally, I believe random mutation, a la Darwin, plays a part (but a very small one) in evolution, but there is much more to it than that - many species (especially viruses) have demonstrated an actual ability to genetically mutate during their own lifespan to adapt to changing environments. I believe that it is in these sort of mutations that more theories of evolution can be discerned.
Of course, I'm a computer programmer, not a biologist, so this is probably all b*llocks! :D
I did like that statement :)
I don't know the whole reason why we're less hairy than our furry ancestors, but maybe clothing has something to do with it. :search:
I don't think the same applies to elephants really. Unless you've seen a clothing range for our rather large cousins? ;)
You have clearly forgotten about the ice age ;)
No, not the film
I did like that statement :)
I don't think the same applies to elephants really. Unless you've seen a clothing range for our rather large cousins? ;)
I dunno- you shopped in Evans lately?
Evolution is a fact.
Darwin's, "Survival of the fittest" Theory of Evolution is a bit shaky, as it relies on "random mutations" to provide the evolutionary changes. I believe that many mathematicians have looked at this and actually concluded that it is statistically virtually impossible for evolution to have occurred as documeted (through fossil records, genetic observation, viral adaption) purely through random mutation.
Personally, I believe random mutation, a la Darwin, plays a part (but a very small one) in evolution, but there is much more to it than that - many species (especially viruses) have demonstrated an actual ability to genetically mutate during their own lifespan to adapt to changing environments. I believe that it is in these sort of mutations that more theories of evolution can be discerned.
Of course, I'm a computer programmer, not a biologist, so this is probably all b*llocks! :D
Nope, your absolutely spot on and viruses are a great example. Wish i had thought of Outbreak lol.
I don't believe in random mutation. Well, i do but, not for evolutionary purposes. More along the lines of something spilled into the brew by accident.
You have clearly forgotten about the ice age ;)
No, not the film
Did God create that too?
I remember it well. Sid was really funny :)
ice age had Ray Romano in. lol
some good points people im really enjoying this! im soo unbeleivably bored at work.
Did God create that too?
I remember it well. Sid was really funny :)
If he did he was getting lazy, it took him 6 days to create the earth and all life yet it took him a gazillion years to freeze and unfreeze it through climate change.
hey hes entitled to a few days holiday!
Now, to get into the depths of my faith...
I don't believe in god, i don't believe in heaven, i don't believe in hell.
I believe there was a man called Jesus Christ who died for his faith (not mankind)
I believe there was a man called Saint Nicholas who tried to do his bit for humanity
But mainly - I hope there is a heaven
Faith to me means hope, not believe. A lot of people have lost touch of what faith actually is. I won't say there is or isn't something if i don't know. I will always say i do or don't think there is.
Show me someone who doesn't hope there is a heaven and i'll show you someone who needs locked up.
Thats my faith ;)
Now, to get into the depths of my faith...
I don't believe in god, i don't believe in heaven, i don't believe in hell.
I believe there was a man called Jesus Christ who died for his faith (not mankind)
I believe there was a man called Saint Nicholas who tried to do his bit for humanity
But mainly - I hope there is a heaven
Faith to me means hope, not believe. A lot of people have lost touch of what faith actually is. I won't say there is or isn't something if i don't know. I will always say i do or don't think there is.
Show me someone who doesn't hope there is a heaven and i'll show you someone who needs locked up.
Thats my faith ;)
see i think your rite.. people have lost hope. but then i think we could go down the politcal path as hope for us now is about our life.. it isnt simple and everyday gripes can be huges deals for us. for me Faith represents both hope and my belief.
and yeh if hopes theyre is no heaven should be locked up.
see i think your rite.. people have lost hope. but then i think we could go down the politcal path as hope for us now is about our life.. it isnt simple and everyday gripes can be huges deals for us. for me Faith represents both hope and my belief.
and yeh if hopes theyre is no heaven should be locked up.
What's your concept of heaven Firestorm?
Is it an afterlife?
Is it enjoying the present moment?
Or is it something else?
Heaven would be great, but I gave up hoping that there'd be one a long, long time ago.
However, I don't think my lack of hope prevents me from living a rich, fulfilling and "good" (ie. helping my fellow man) life. I don't need the heaven/hell carrot/stick to do this!
What's your concept of heaven Firestorm?
Is it an afterlife?
Is it enjoying the present moment?
Or is it something else?
my idea of heaven.. see thats a tough question.
i beleive in an afterlife for sure.. seems all to pointless for us to exist and die(for me :D) i think that heaven wil be a place where i meet other people.. but i beleive their wont be pain suffering, or wrong doin. i beleive it will the best party ever! a place of enjoyment. ties it with hope and happyness really
how bout u.
p.s before anything everyone should be good to each other!
Heaven would be great, but I gave up hoping that there'd be one a long, long time ago.
However, I don't think my lack of hope prevents me from living a rich, fulfilling and "good" (ie. helping my fellow man) life. I don't need the heaven/hell carrot/stick to do this!
I'm curious but i have to ask why?
When someone dies do you not hope heaven exists and they are in it? Its not a religious thing, its how our brain gets by.
My wifes cat ran away just after we moved in. Chances are it got ran down, and we are pretty sure it did, but we still hope it didn't and that someone has taken her in.
Hoping for the best during the worst is part of what makes us human.
my idea of heaven.. see thats a tough question.
i beleive in an afterlife for sure.. seems all to pointless for us to exist and die(for me :D) i think that heaven wil be a place where i meet other people.. but i beleive their wont be pain suffering, or wrong doin. i beleive it will the best party ever! a place of enjoyment. ties it with hope and happyness really
how bout u.
p.s before anything everyone should be good to each other!
You and i have different ideas of "the best party ever" lol
Heaven would be great, but I gave up hoping that there'd be one a long, long time ago.
However, I don't think my lack of hope prevents me from living a rich, fulfilling and "good" (ie. helping my fellow man) life. I don't need the heaven/hell carrot/stick to do this!
Me too. I live a 'good' life, but not because I'm scared of hell.
a quote from a random tv show i have no idea what it was
" stand on the white line , not snort it"
springs to mind lol
You and i have different ideas of "the best party ever" lol
EVERYONE regardless of beleif should try and live good. theres too much stuff in the world.. too much violence and too much of mans inhumanity to man.
Me too. I live a 'good' life, but not because I'm scared of hell.
willismaximus
24-07-08, 16:25
Personally, i can understand people hoping for something greater after we die as it gives people comfort that the end isn't necessarily the end and that's fine. I know plenty of people who can't accept that once you're done you're done but for me i'm of the opinion that once you go, as horrible as it may sound, that's it. If i die and am proved wrong then hooray for that, but unless someone can prove the unproveable then i'll go with what i personally imagine is the most likely scenario.
I'm curious but i have to ask why?
When someone dies do you not hope heaven exists and they are in it? Its not a religious thing, its how our brain gets by.
Hoping for the best during the worst is part of what makes us human.
Good question. I don't think of myself as a particularly emotional person, and I tend not to "suffer" (?) with grief too much. I also sometime feel that I do not "love" as much as other people seem to (or claim to).
Maybe I'm less "human" than most humans? :imsorry:
I like being nice to people, though...... I enjoy seeing other people happy.
EVERYONE regardless of beleif should try and live good. theres too much stuff in the world.. too much violence and too much of mans inhumanity to man.
Mostly due to religion IMO
I can see this thread going downhill fast, if we're not careful! :)
Good question. I don't think of myself as a particularly emotional person, and I tend not to "suffer" (?) with grief too much. I also sometime feel that I do not "love" as much as other people seem to (or claim to).
Maybe I'm less "human" than most humans? :imsorry:
I like being nice to people, though...... I enjoy seeing other people happy.
Now, that is something very interesting. Believe it or not i am exactly the same. I seem to react differently than other people to most situations.
I never understood the "love" thing, hard to explain really. My wife thinks i have a heart of stone. A few girlfriends have actually said to me "would you even care if i left", i said yes but i always doubted i would lol.
Always assumed everyone else was just over emphisizing their thoughts, feelings. Least i'm not the only one now lol.
willismaximus
24-07-08, 16:37
I agree that everyone should play nice with each other etc.... but unfortunately i can't see that ever happening.... course that could then be used in the pro-science anti-faithist (JustGav really has invented a word there because we're all using it now lol) argument to say that there isn't such thing as God as why would he let his own creations do some of the horrible things that we do to each other? Yes, those people who believe cite that he works in mysterious ways etc but if he allows things like that to happen then he mustn't care very much for his creations really to allow them to suffer the he does which makes him actually very cruel....
Also, have you noticed in literature i'e. the bible's own teachings, he is referred to as a 'he', now how on earth would anyone know that, did someone look under god's robes? If it is an omnipotent being then surely it would go beyond gender.
Who Decided on the name 'God' where did that come from, and if he appeared to someone and referred to himself as that then how do we know this person wasn't just dreaming or hallucinating....
In fact, the bible could just be a fictional story written for entertainment just as a modern day novel is now but someone filed it in the factual department by accident..... :sly: Conspiracy theory time.....
Sorry, went off on a rant about a few random thoughts there
my idea of heaven.. see thats a tough question.
i beleive in an afterlife for sure.. seems all to pointless for us to exist and die(for me :D) i think that heaven wil be a place where i meet other people.. but i beleive their wont be pain suffering, or wrong doin. i beleive it will the best party ever! a place of enjoyment. ties it with hope and happyness really
how bout u.
p.s before anything everyone should be good to each other!
That's almost an astonishing thing to say :) I don't believe it's all too pointless. Perhaps then there is a difference between existing(in a mechanical sense) and actual living.
So for me, my idea of heaven would be to drop our illusions and find some inner peace, before we die- and then and only then, I feel we may be on to to something. I guess many people think of heaven as an outwardly place- up high somewhere in the future, rather than inside themselves, right now.
Still a pleasant enough discussion nonetheless :)
willismaximus
24-07-08, 16:41
Yeah, i get a lot of the "You don't have any emotional feelings" type statements from the missus but it's not like i don't have feelings, i think i do, just not very many and i guess i don't express the few i do actually have either which doesn't help matters apparently
Now, that is something very interesting. Believe it or not i am exactly the same. I seem to react differently than other people to most situations.
I never understood the "love" thing, hard to explain really. My wife thinks i have a heart of stone. A few girlfriends have actually said to me "would you even care if i left", i said yes but i always doubted i would lol.
Always assumed everyone else was just over emphisizing their thoughts, feelings. Least i'm not the only one now lol.
Yep, the *love* thing is pehaps not real love but some people getting deperately attached to the image of their lovers/friends/family and so suffering ensues when their image fractures one day.
Perhaps being detached in a sense gives a truer perspective, rather than heartless.
I would like to try an experiment. I have a scientific theory on how it would go:
Take 1000 babies, raise them without ever knowing what religion or god is. Give them a good life and allow natural development. Ask them if they think there is a being looking after them.
Take 1000 babies, raise them without ever knowing what religion or god is. Give them a poor upbringing (as in money, not beating them lol) with next to nothing. Ask them if they think there is a being looking after them.
My theory is the 1000 babies raised in poverty would have faith in something. They would have to for their own sake. Most poor people are religious, they need to think there is a better life waiting for them.
Thats my theory and my reason for thinking religion groups are just power hungry thugs exploiting people's innocence and desperation. This is another reason i don't believe in God. If there was a "God" he would do something about the attrocity that is "religion".
Fact, the Catholic Church has enough money to wipe out 3rd world debt single handedly. Why doesn't it?
Yep, the *love* thing is pehaps not real love but some people getting deperately attached to the image of their lovers/friends/family and so suffering ensues when their image fractures one day.
Perhaps being detached in a sense gives a truer perspective, rather than heartless.
yeh perphaps. i think that im a lot tougher now through breakups. i know that i can exist on my own.. but then i do love my gf alot. maybe its not heartless... maybes its being defensive.
Greed. Hearts of man are dark dude. real dark.
I beleive that God wont stop what happens ( ive said this b4 on here too lol dejavous) cos of freewill. to stop that wouldnt be freewill woudlnt it.
mind u this can be related to Islam. etc
Greed. Hearts of man are dark dude. real dark.
I beleive that God wont stop what happens ( ive said this b4 on here too lol dejavous) cos of freewill. to stop that wouldnt be freewill woudlnt it.
mind u this can be related to Islam. etc
There is no freewill with any religion. U know one good thing i think comes out of religion. Most of the followers are generally good people. My wifes family are really really really religious and they honestly have hearts of gold, same goes for anyone else i have met. The trouble is there is always an awkwardness with "bible bashers". I don't have it as i understand it, but i do notice other people acting differently around certain folks because they know they are really religious.
Max Headroom
24-07-08, 17:23
1. Evolution. We as a human race have not evolved really one iota, the technology around us has. Take away the technology and we revert to our basic state.
2. The Bible. A whole load of hogwash. A collection of "stories",nothing more nothing less. And depending on which religion you are, christian-wise, the books of the bible vary. How can it be the word of god when it was decided which parts of the bible we would see by men of the cloth in the 11th century.
3. The continued development of mankind. Because of greater technology, those babies who would have perished at birth, because of some disease or physical or mental trauma are "saved" by technological advances in medicine to live a life full of pain and suffering.
4. Religion. A waste of time. Churches full of those who want to believe, yet take for example the Catholic church. In Africa women are dying of aids because the Catholic missionaries refuse to support contraception, thereby allowing thousands to die a slow and painful death.
Tannhauser
24-07-08, 17:56
I think I'll stay out of the religion stuff. I've got a science background, and I'm an atheist, but it always seems to me that people have an incredibly negative and one-sided view of the Christian teachings.
Anyway, to get back to Trev's original point:
So, in my head Darwin is correct, I can see how it all could happen the way he thought, and it seems the most plausible explanation, but this got me thinking about humans. We are the only species (I think) who don't choose a mate by their strengths, ie: using instinct. In other species it's always the strongest or fastest or best looking partner that gets chosen, so the genes are always getting better and evolving, but humans don't choose a (long term) mate for their natural strengths, we go on personality and 'love', so essentially the human species is getting weaker all the time because the weak genes are being passed on as well as the strong. We also have offspring with people who aren't our long term mate, which is even worse, because at some levels in society there is pretty much NO selection process at all!! That's pretty scary
The phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ causes all sorts of problems, because we use 'fittest' in two distinct ways. ‘Fitness’ tends to conjure up images of running faster, fighting harder and so on. But ‘fitness’ to a biologist means ‘ability to pass on genes to the next generation’., i.e. “reproductive fitness”.
Fitness, then, means “ability to produce many copies of yourself in the current conditions”. In a society where mortality rates are really low, if a gene ‘programmed’ us to have loads of kids for example, then yes, that gene will be successful and will gradually change behaviour. Which is what ‘Idiocracy’ posits.
The idea of ‘weak genes’ is therefore confusing two different things: (1) weak in the sense of undesirable and (2) weak in the sense of reproductively unsuccessful. Number (1) is a value judgement built up from the culture we live in. It means nothing to 'nature'. As far as nature is concerned, a combination of Bear Grylls, Einstein and Martin Luther King has weaker genes than Sean McChav the pasty-faced car TWOCer with an IQ of 80, if the former has less children that survive to pass on their genes than the latter.
Do your bit for evolution today guys. Go out and get an intelligent girl knocked up. :D
I've often thought about human evolution, and the only conclusion I can come to is that it's not something that ever stops - take the example of natural blondes, can't remember where I read it but apparantly due to hair dye being used so much nowadays, guys who prefer blondes were more likely to go after a 'fake' one (airplane blonde ;)) since the trend was for dark haired girls to dye their hair blonde.... the result was that if current trends continued, natural blondes would be 'extinct' in a few hundred years.
But apparantly the trends (especially in the US) changed, and the fake blondes are going back to brunnette, turning the whole thing on it's head.
Tannhauser
24-07-08, 18:00
Could evolution make us physically weaker? Absolutely, if there was a selection pressure to get rid of it. For example, if we entered a phase in which women only went for spindly types for partners. But physical robustness won’t disappear without a good reason. We have retained many features that are of no damn use to us in the modern world, but without a good reason to go, they are still with us.
As for the role of love and attraction, there’s an immense body of work that has looked at the guiding hand of evolution in determining mate choice. Evolutionary psychologists argue that you can see sexual selection processes written all over personal ads. Men tend to sell themselves more on status and earnings (=ability to provide), women tend to focus on personality traits, youth and looks(=ability to nurture, ability to bear healthy offspring). Personally, I don’t buy most of it, but it is possible that what lies behind attraction and love are the same gene-driven instincts that operate lower down the ladder.
So is it intelligence that causes this? Mother Nature has tried all kinds of things as weapons for her children; most notably large claws and sharp teeth are still the winners 'out in the wild', her next attempt was intelligence. Dolphins, apes, humans, etc. We obviously use intelligence to make us the strongest species, we make tools and weapons of our own (so does that mean shooting a Tiger is natural selection?), and we rely more and more on our inventions to keep us above the other things in nature.
There could be trouble ahead, if we're becoming weaker in terms of survival in the wild, we'll eventually rely completely on technology, what happens if it goes away? On the other side it could mean that technological advancement IS the next evolutionary step, and we are becoming stronger and evolving by adding technology to ourselves. What if that was the only way nature could get to the next level; by using humans as a stepping stone to technology and robots!!
I had to think about this. The problem is that we use the word evolution to mean two different things:
1)the behavioural and physical changes in a biological organism in reponse to a change in its environment
2)a general word for anything that is changing over time.
In a sense, you could say technology is a product of intelligence and cooperative behaviour, so it’s a means of propagating genes that itself has been produced by those genes. What complicates the situation is that you can’t simply reduce technology to genetics. Technology is a product of culture, and while the factors that helped develop culture are undoubtedly genetic, culture has emergent properties that go way beyond genetics.
All you need is love; the lower species have a higher ratio of instinct:intelligence, and they don't love. The more intelligent species such as apes, chimps, certain large pets etc do show love but still have strong instincts, then there's humans who have a high ratio of intelligence:instinct, and we are controlled by love, so what is love? Again, maybe nature knows that love is an unfortunate bi-product of intelligence, so robots are the way to go; loveless machines with ultimate intelligence to rule the world.
But Mother Nature is deaf and blind, and don’t know nuffin. In a sense , you could say that we already ARE robots, programmed by our genes to make copies of themselves. This is the analogy that the tiresome proselityzer Richard Dawkins makes in The Selfish Gene (his finest hour: it was all down hill from there).
There’s no reason for love to disappear when the genes that programme for this are doing so well for themselves.
U know one good thing i think comes out of religion. Most of the followers are generally good people. My wifes family are really really really religious and they honestly have hearts of gold, same goes for anyone else i have met.
Spot on. Much as I dislike the concept of organised religion, I think it's fair to say that it has contributed vastly to the quality of society today (which may be lower than you'd like, but is much, MUCH higher than it could be).
I think that it's significantly due to the decline in organised religion in the UK that we are seeing a rapid decline in the quality of society.
Little toes will go first. Maybe another thousand years, but they will be gone soon enough...we dont need them anymore, our hi-tech footware providing far more support and balance than the little toe ever could.
Teeth....who needs teeth in the future, future-food being processed mush, pre-packed, pre-cooked and probably pre-chewed mechanically. There will come a time in our future when a child will be born whos teeth will never grow. He wont need them as his daily intake can be drunk through a straw.
Testicles would go next. Women wouldnt need them...pregnancy being available on page six of a home and garden magazine. Get one quick before the fad dies out and childbirth becomes the sole duty of those not intelligent enough to run a conglomerate. Men wouldnt need them as sex would be illegal on overpopulation grounds first, then legalised again after it was proved that active sperm was in fact the subject of history. Evolution will eventually absorb the two bags of wasted skin to help the body grow breasts... after all, male genes would be almost female by then so why go half way, just get it over with completely.
Hair would follow soon after...it used to fall out far too early as it was, nature would just tidy things up and not give us the hassle in future.
Our immune systems would be almost non existent by then, but then we wouldnt need one as the outside atmosphere never gets into our sealed city domes, the air being scrubbed by the last word (literally) in germ killing antibiotics.
As has been said on here already, we will get to a state of cushioned, sanitised and impotent evolution that will kill us dead should our technology eventually fail.
Little toes will go first. ....blah..blah eventually fail.
:)
http://www.k3pgp.org/seti/aliens.jpg
Pretty much.
Have u seen wall-E?
The writer had pretty much the same idea as yourself regarding food.
Have u seen wall-E?
The writer had pretty much the same idea as yourself regarding food.
No, not yet although I'm looking forward to it. I was just regurgitating thoughts previously made by others over the years.
Little toes will go first. Maybe another thousand years, but they will be gone soon enough...we dont need them anymore, our hi-tech footware providing far more support and balance than the little toe ever could.
Teeth....who needs teeth in the future, future-food being processed mush, pre-packed, pre-cooked and probably pre-chewed mechanically. There will come a time in our future when a child will be born whos teeth will never grow. He wont need them as his daily intake can be drunk through a straw.
Testicles would go next. Women wouldnt need them...pregnancy being available on page six of a home and garden magazine. Get one quick before the fad dies out and childbirth becomes the sole duty of those not intelligent enough to run a conglomerate. Men wouldnt need them as sex would be illegal on overpopulation grounds first, then legalised again after it was proved that active sperm was in fact the subject of history. Evolution will eventually absorb the two bags of wasted skin to help the body grow breasts... after all, male genes would be almost female by then so why go half way, just get it over with completely.
Hair would follow soon after...it used to fall out far too early as it was, nature would just tidy things up and not give us the hassle in future.
Our immune systems would be almost non existent by then, but then we wouldnt need one as the outside atmosphere never gets into our sealed city domes, the air being scrubbed by the last word (literally) in germ killing antibiotics.
As has been said on here already, we will get to a state of cushioned, sanitised and impotent evolution that will kill us dead should our technology eventually fail.
In short-reverting back to a fish.
I think that it's significantly due to the decline in organised religion in the UK that we are seeing a rapid decline in the quality of society.
:d hit the nail on the head!
:d hit the nail on the head!
Not necessarily, I don't think it’s specifically down to religion. It’s down to a lack of fear. Religion used to distil an inherent fear of judgement and judgement day in people, it doesn't work anymore so another fear stirrer is required.
I say bring on chavhunting as a sport! I think that just might work, and if it doesn't who cares? It's fun anyway.
True, true - fear of real repercussions from a law-figure (Judge Dredd, anyone?) could be a satisfactory replacement for religious fairytale goblins as a social control.
The difference is that religion used to be the law. Now it isn't, something else is needed - and it's not our current law system.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.