Reply With Quote
I was trying to reply to your above post so after you changed yours I changed mine.I couldn't find a "delete" button for the post.
I couldn't find a "delete" button for the post.
I was trying to reply to your above post so after you changed yours I changed mine.I couldn't find a "delete" button for the post.
Maybe people who made up god are just lazy bas s. it...it takes too long to figure out how we got here. So let's just say someone made us.
Makes sense.
Maybe God made lazy bas s who don't pay their debts?
Top Cherry,
I haven't read all of your posts in this thread, because after reading the first few I got this gist of what you were trying to say.
First of all, to say that emotions are strictly human is incorrect. There is every reason to believe that certain animals display emotional structure. You may not be aware of the social complexity in higher apes but there are many ways in which they display emotions.
As far as physical traits on a human, there is a traceable reason for almost everything on our bodies. In fact, I can't think of anything that has adapted in a way that was suitable for the way of life that best worked for any particular species. Taste buds are not limited to humans and work much in the same way in many other animals. The sense of taste is an offshoot of the sense of smell and is not limited to humans.
The large variety of species on this earth exsist because each one fills a niche. They are able to fit in somewhere because of their specialized traits and work to keep the entire planet in a balance.
The majority of your posts are based on misconceptions and ignorance. You assume that because you do not understand the reasoning for something, it must have been placed by a higher being for human enjoyment or use.
Top Cherry,
Congratulations. You are officially the first person to try to be offensive of other people's beliefs.
How the do you know if I'm not laughing right now at all the things I'm reading? Hmm?
You don't see me telling them how much I find this to be "ridiculous".
Sorry if I offended you. (sincerely) But I'd be lying if I said I didn't think your ideas on this matter were fairly insane.
Well, I've evolved from the young kid I was at 16 to the big kid I am now.
Off topic...but this is not correct. Galileo was not forced to recant a belief in heliocentricity. He was told to recant for saying that heliocentricity was a fact, rather than a theory.
Copernicus, who put forth the theory, was a Catholic priest.
Actually, the primary (though not the only) resistance to heliocentricity as even a possibility was brought by the Protestant Reformers.
Actually, I don't believe humans are evolving into a "superior" being either...but not for any theological reasons.
Because humans have reached a certain point of both intelligence and technological ability, we now have the ability to alter our environment rather than adapt to it. (DISCLAIMER...I am using "environment" in its most general sense here, not as "climate". This is not a global warming discussion.) Were natural selection still in full effect with humans, we would no longer need glasses, for example. Hemophiliacs would have died out a long time ago. Many other genetic disorders definitely inimical to survival would have also died out.
Instead, we humans make glasses...and try to treat genetic disorders...
Galileo made his point to the church like Cindy Sheehan is making hers. He could have been a lot more diplomatic about it, and basically was charged for pissing people off and being an asshole. Still not a high point in Church/science relations, but politicized and used as an argument by atheists for centuries.
Edit: Damn! Travis beat me to it.
Evolution is very humbling. Cosmology is even more so.
With God, we're an integral part of God's plan in creation, beloved, cared for, made in his image with intellect, conscience, and personhood, so valuable that God himself tasted death in order to redeem us for himself.
Without God, we're basically fancy monkeys on a tiny planet around an insignificant star far out on an arm of an ordinary galaxy somewhere in an isolated corner of the universe. We're just infintesimal specks in the scope of things.
Theologically, modern science should be very useful to the believer in terms of gaining the proper perspective in his relationship with God.
Here is my question: why does DNA replicate? Why doesn't it follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and break up into smaller, less organized molecules with simpler structures with more stable bonds? The answer is, of course, because it is alive and can supply energy to replicate itself in its complex form. The 2nd law of thermodynamics still applies, and is a source for genetic mutations that are part of evolution.
However, what about that 1st "self-replicating" DNA molecule? Was it "alive"? What outside force was supplying energy for the reaction? Sure, energy in sunlight or heat from the earth could have been the source. But -why the did it want to self-replicate, as opposed to other molecules that don't?
Ruling out intelligent design is like creationists ruling out evolution. Someone said it before, evolution is a mechanism, and intelligent design is a philosophy.
You've made a mistake in applying the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The entropy of the universe is increasing, yes. But with a sufficiently large source of energy, this tendency toward disorder can be overcome.
In our case, that is the sun.
Simpler molecules also self-replicate.However, what about that 1st "self-replicating" DNA molecule? Was it "alive"? What outside force was supplying energy for the reaction? Sure, energy in sunlight or heat from the earth could have been the source. But -why the did it want to self-replicate, as opposed to other molecules that don't?
But that's still not enough. Even if there is some property of matter that causes certain compounds to self-replicate, why does matter have those properties and not some other ones?
That was me.Ruling out intelligent design is like creationists ruling out evolution. Someone said it before, evolution is a mechanism, and intelligent design is a philosophy.
We are. I'm quoting somebody but when we see beyond ourselves then we'll find that life goes on within us and without us.
In the end, it doesn't matter. 500 years from now nobody will remember you, or me. Unless you do something like cure cancer or AIDS, your ripples through time will end the day you die.
I think that's the problem with religion to me, I don't think nobody wants to accept that once you die it's the end, they want to believe that there is something more to it to justify their sorry ass lives.
One could make the arguement that evolution is not bound to organic changes. Glasses are a form of evolution, if you will. As is the rest of what you mentioned. Language was probably the largest evolutionary step of all. Think of how humanity has advanced as a result of language. It is exponential.
But, even from a purely biological standpoint, Humans have already changed a great deal from the first Sapiens.
I would put glasses in the category of "devolution", personally...a technological aid to what would otherwise be a trait inimical to survival.
What changes in particular?
He hopes this is true so that his debt will be forgotten...
I think you would call that innovation, not evolution.
Language is an organic change.
Glasses are technology, not biological evolution. Technology is one of the things that make us unique. We are able to overcome physiological deficiencies that otherwise might inhibit reproduction.
You're using a very general definition of "evolution." A plasma HDTV certainly is much more highly "evolved" than an old RCA from 1949.
The problem is that thinking this way causes a misconception about biological evolution -- organisms don't "optimize" the way technology does. There are many features of the human body that if done that way by an engineer, would get the engineer fired. We're designed just well enough to get by.
Our knees are designed very poorly. They are laterally unstable. The idea of having the urethra go over the prostate gland is stupid. Forcing an infant's skull to go through the mother's pubic bone is asinine. And don't get me started about all the extra weight and needless bulk in our head and neck necessary to keep our eyes working. Spiders have a much better design than this "rotating orb" thing we got going.
While these features aren't optimized, they stuck because at whatever time, that mutation was one of the ones that helped that particular organism adapt to its environment and reproduce instead of an organism with a less favorable mutation. But we won't "evolve" out of those features unless there is something in the environment that is incompatible with those features so that we die off before we can reproduce or so we reproduce less.
Given those criteria, I would argue that modern technology can be an evolutionary disadvantage, because on average the people who benefit the most from it reproduce less than those who don't have it.
Well, theres the phsyical differences between Neandertals and "Modern" Humans. They were taller, broader, and typically had bigger brains. We have differences with early Cro Magnon man as well.
Then you also hear about how the average height of the American male is going up. That is evolution in action as well.
If you want to see a severe case of short term evolution due to selective breeding, take a look at the African American population today. Do you think breeding practices during slavery might have something to do with their dominance of sports in this country today?
I think you make a very valid point.
Sincerely,
Jimmy the Greek
Neanderthals are not Sapiens.
And I would counter that increased height and longer life-span (you didn't mention that, but I consider it in the same category) are more a product of innovation (as SWC) puts it than evolution. Again, we humans are altering our environment rather than adapting to it. Better diet, better medicine and medical practices, etc...
Increased height is from evolution. Because standing upright enabled early man-like beings to see farther away. Instead of very limited field of vision with his back hunched.
sapiens could already stand upright. We are discussing differences in average height between early and modern sapiens.
Not necessarily. Nutrition has a lot to do with that as well.
Another thing to keep in mind is that mutations happen all the time. If you separate populations of a species, they will diverge somehow over time, even absent environmental stresses. For example, British women have larger breasts on average than other European women. There is no reason for this.
Perhaps intelligent designers could argue that God just chose to bless British men.
In the case of humans, since environmental stresses no longer factor in, we may well just become more diverse. However, that will take a long time, and for now, virtually all of our genetic diversity is in Africa.
Assuming that happened, I guess it follows the model. The intervention of the slaveholder would be the environmental stress. Genetic variation with regard to strength, speed, quickness, and physical coordination was already present in the human species. So existing mutations were selected to affect the gene pool of the entire population.If you want to see a severe case of short term evolution due to selective breeding, take a look at the African American population today. Do you think breeding practices during slavery might have something to do with their dominance of sports in this country today?
Of course, we should add that it was morally repugant to breed human beings like cattle.
P.S. With regard to genetic variation within a species, look at the common dog. Compare a Great Dane to a Chihuahua. Keep in mind that all dogs descend from a small group of mentally impaired grey wolves, and that they're really still the same species, since if your dog gets away and mates with a grey wolf, the offspring will still be fertile.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
