Darwinism?? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

saltfish · 10-15-2003, 08:32 PM

Quote:
"I believe in adaptability and survival of the fittest. Macro evolution has been proven but micro hasn't. "

The concept of micro-evolution - or diversification of species - is a fact of nature. Species do vary and change, but only on a small scale. We have many examples of Darwin's finches and even the breeding history of dogs which supports the notion of micro-evolution. (http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner...icro_Evol.html)

Umm-huh.. Yeah...

-SF

stingc · 10-15-2003, 08:38 PM

Rubyee,
Everyone's jumping on you because this is a discussion about things that have actually happened. We're not asking your favorite icecream flavor. Unless you don't believe in the concept of an objective reality (I don't think you're saying this), then there is only one right answer. We're discussing what that answer is.

Of course you can believe whatever you want, but nobody cares what you believe. We care why. This is a discussion, not a poll.

Darkblack · 10-16-2003, 08:51 AM

http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html

Quote:

1.2: What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis?

In popular usage, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy sort of fact. But to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing facts and predicts new ones. For instance, today I saw the Sun rise. This is a fact. This fact is explained by the theory that the Earth is round and spins on its axis while orbiting the sun. This theory also explains other facts, such as the seasons and the phases of the moon, and allows me to make predictions about what will happen tomorrow.

This means that in some ways the words fact and theory are interchangeable. The organisation of the solar system, which I used as a simple example of a theory, is normally considered to be a fact that is explained by Newton's theory of gravity. And so on.

A hypothesis is a tentative theory that has not yet been tested. Typically, a scientist devises a hypothesis and then sees if it "holds water" by testing it against available data. If the hypothesis does hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory.

An important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypotheis is that it be "falsifiable". This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.

On the other hand the theory that "there is an invisible snorg reading this over your shoulder" is not falsifiable. There is no experiment or possible evidence that could prove that invisible snorgs do not exist. So the Snorg Hypothesis is not scientific. On the other hand, the "Negative Snorg Hypothesis" (that they do not exist) is scientific. You can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to yetis, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster. See also question 5.2 on the age of the Universe.

1.3: Can science ever really prove anything?

Yes and no. It depends on what you mean by "prove".

For instance, there is little doubt that an object thrown into the air will come back down (ignoring spacecraft for the moment). One could make a scientific observation that "Things fall down". I am about to throw a stone into the air. I use my observation of past events to predict that the stone will come back down. Wow - it did!

But next time I throw a stone, it might not come down. It might hover, or go shooting off upwards. So not even this simple fact has been really proved. But you would have to be very perverse to claim that the next thrown stone will not come back down. So for ordinary everyday use, we can say that the theory is true.

You can think of facts and theories (not just scientific ones, but ordinary everyday ones) as being on a scale of certainty. Up at the top end we have facts like "things fall down". Down at the bottom we have "the Earth is flat". In the middle we have "I will die of heart disease". Some scientific theories are nearer the top than others, but none of them ever actually reach it. Skepticism is usually directed at claims that contradict facts and theories that are very near the top of the scale. If you want to discuss ideas nearer the middle of the scale (that is, things about which there is real debate in the scientific community) then you would be better off asking on the appropriate specialist group.

1.4: If scientific theories keep changing, where is the Truth?

In 1666 Isaac Newton proposed his theory of gravitation. This was one of the greatest intellectual feats of all time. The theory explained all the observed facts, and made predictions that were later tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone could see, Newton's theory was the Truth.

During the nineteenth century, more accurate instruments were used to test Newton's theory, and found some slight discrepancies (for instance, the orbit of Mercury wasn't quite right). Albert Einstein proposed his theories of Relativity, which explained the newly observed facts and made more predictions. Those predictions have now been tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone can see, Einstein's theory is the Truth.

So how can the Truth change? Well the answer is that it hasn't. The Universe is still the same as it ever was, and Newton's theory is as true as it ever was. If you take a course in physics today, you will be taught Newton's Laws. They can be used to make predictions, and those predictions are still correct. Only if you are dealing with things that move close to the speed of light do you need to use Einstein's theories. If you are working at ordinary speeds outside of very strong gravitational fields and use Einstein, you will get (almost) exactly the same answer as you would with Newton. It just takes longer because using Einstein involves rather more maths.

One other note about truth: science does not make moral judgements. Anyone who tries to draw moral lessons from the laws of nature is on very dangerous ground. Evolution in particular seems to suffer from this. At one time or another it seems to have been used to justify Nazism, Communism, and every other -ism in between. These justifications are all completely bogus. Similarly, anyone who says "evolution theory is evil because it is used to support Communism" (or any other -ism) has also strayed from the path of Logic.

Just thought some people might need to read this. There is a difference between scientific theory, ie, evolution and theory, ie, God or the invisible snorg.

thanks for reading.

Darkblack · 10-16-2003, 08:55 AM

a bit more from that page......

Quote:

5.1: Is the Bible evidence of anything?
Apart from the beliefs of those who wrote it, no. It is true that most Christians take the truth of at least some parts of the bible as an article of faith, but non-Christians are not so constrained. Quoting the bible to such a person as "evidence" will simply cause them to question the accuracy of the bible. See the alt.atheism FAQ lists for more details.

Some things in the bible are demonstrably true, but this does not make the bible evidence, since there are also things in the bible that are demonstrably false.

5.2: Could the Universe have been created old?

An argument is sometimes put forward along the following lines:

We know from biblical evidence (see above) that the Universe is about 6,000 years old. Therefore God created it 6,000 years ago with fossils in the ground and light on its way from distant stars, so that there is no way of telling the real age of the Universe simply by looking at it.
This is the "Omphalos" (Navel) theory of Edmund Gosse. Adam had no mother so did not need a navel, but was created by God with one, i.e. physical proof of connection with a nonexistent mother. Similarly, at the moment of Creation the world was chock-full of things that must have happened yesterday, when yesterday did not exist.

The hypothesis is unfalsifiable, and therefore not a scientific one (see the section on the scientific method). It could also be made for any date in the past (like last Tuesday). Finally it requires that God, who is alleged to speak to us through His Works, should be lying to us by setting up a misleading Creation. This seems to be rather inconsistent with Biblical claims of God being the source of all truth.

One might also argue that in creating the universe "old", God also created the past of the universe. This "fake" past must be a perfect match with the "real" past (otherwise we could spot the join). Hence the events from before the moment of "creation" are just as real as the events which have happened since. Since God is supposed to exist independently of time and space, this makes the whole idea meaningless.

Note that this argument is not put forward by creation scientists. They hold that modern science has misinterpreted the evidence about the age of the universe.

eple · 10-16-2003, 01:25 PM

ah....just for the record I never said that Darwin created social Darwinism (but he was quoted supporting it though...)

DownwardSpiral · 10-19-2003, 09:00 AM

Hmm, how about this. Who cares about where we came from or what Darwin says or what the Bible says? We will never know exactly where humans came from or how we came about 100%. So why worry about it? Religious people will stick to their "God" creating man, and others will say evolution. I personally think that as I stated earlier, evolution makes more sense than one entity creating all man, but evolution is farfetched as well. But does it really matter where we came from? Honestly. This is a question of faith vs. science, and it will never be resolved. So just let it go. I'm in the same boat as Rubyee here, earlier you stated that you didn't care about what created you or something along those lines, and I agree.

matt_mll · 10-19-2003, 04:36 PM

I am a strong believer in darwanism. Natures way of trial by error. If something fails, it dies and doesn't reproduce; but if something works the creature survives and is able to reproduce. Compounded over millions (or billions) of generations and something is bound to happen (hence our existance). Sorry, creationism doesn't work for me.

For a good laugh and a practical application of darwinism check out www.darwinawards.com. It's full of all the "creative" ways that people have removed themselves from the gene pool.

prosequence · 10-21-2003, 10:56 AM

There's one good ting about darwin's idea, survival of the fitest, I can kill people I don't like and take their stuff.

Darkblack · 10-21-2003, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by prosequence
There's one good ting about darwin's idea, survival of the fitest, I can kill people I don't like and take their stuff.

Then you get the death penalty and your stuff is donated to the gonvernment.

Good plan! Get started!

prosequence · 10-21-2003, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darkblack
Then you get the death penalty and your stuff is donated to the gonvernment.

Is that really a part of Darwins theory ... hmmm, I don't remember seeing it in there.... hmmm maybe it is in the translation of survival of the fitest? Not sure.... Is the government the fitest then? since they would survive and have all my stuff.... Having all my stuff could do them a lot of good, like with the stuff over here they can do stuff with it. The other stuff they might just throw out, maybe give it to the weakest folks... nah, they would just kill them and take it back... hmmm what would they do with all my stuff ?

This leaves me much to think about... that ol' Darwin.

CSflim · 10-22-2003, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by prosequence
This leaves me much to think about... that ol' Darwin.

Darwin's theory of Evolution by Natural selection was never about ethics. It was never about what is right or wrong. It was an attempt to explain how the complexity of living things arose.

Social Darwinism is nothing to do with Darwin, no more than scientology has anything to do with science.

The natural world is cruel and harsh. We as a species have evolved beyond the natrual anarchy, in our attempts to create a society.

If you want to learn more about this I would suggest the following books:

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

Evolution of Cooperation by Robert M. Axelrod. (not really about biological evolution, rather it is a mathematical look at the prisoner's dillema)

and also check out this thread:
Human emotion\motives figured out

If you are using "evolution isn't ethical" as your disproof, then you are simply waaay off the mark.

Fibrosa · 10-22-2003, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CSflim
If you are using "evolution isn't ethical" as your disproof, then you are simply waaay off the mark.

Not only is it off the mark, it's not even relevant; even if evolution was a 'unethical', how does that disprove it?

It doesn't.

And that's even supposing that social darwinism had anything to do with evolution.

Nisses · 10-22-2003, 02:36 PM

the point of this discussion is usually that it runs away with both parties and leads them on a tanget so far they can't remember how they started in the first place.

Darwinism speaks of survival of the fittest. Which means there is a role to be filled, with certain requirements. If you are most fit to fulfill that role, you will survive as a species. No idea what individual animals/people will do, but that's not the point. Darwinism tells us how all kinds of live can likely have evolved and backs it up with some credible evidence. It has the flaw that it starts with life. It doesn't explain life itself.

So did God create life? If we go by remnants left in the earth, we can see he did not directly create it. We can recreate alot of basic carbon-strings that might easily lead to RNA and DNA strings eventually, even in an everyday lab. Does that mean there is nothing at all special? I don't know that for sure. Where does the Big Laboratory come from? Big Bang? Contracting and expanding universe? Fine. Where did those come from then? Separate black holes exploding? Fine, where did the whole of it come from then?

We don't know. We can only logically deduct things. Empirical evidence of what came before that, can't be found, since according to all our standards there wasn't any *time* or space before that period.

ie. At present our science has no explanation for it. They can't say what came before that. All they tell us, has as much value as what the Bible tells us.

So you might as well believe it was God that created the universe or even Joe Pesci.

Somehow this universe came to exist and what happened before the very first millisecond, is beyond our grasp.

I'd call that super-natural.

TIO · 10-22-2003, 07:46 PM

Nisses, our science does have explainations. They just haven't been verified yet.
Are you saying that the Bible is closer to the truth? One book has a better idea than generations of scientific research?
Sure, we're not 100% certain about everything that's ever happened. But we're pretty sure about the way some things have happened, and we've learned that by looking at our universe and trying to explain it, rather than taking what one person wrote thousands of years ago as, quite literally, gospel.

Downward Spiral, I find your attitude somewhat worrying. Just because we don't know something, doesn't make it worth discussing? I think our uncertainty makes the discussion all the more worthwhile!
And in the course of this discussion, some people have learned a few new things about evolution, darwinism and creationism, so I think it was worthwhile.

Nisses · 10-22-2003, 11:58 PM

If you look at the facts that are there, we can never tell what came before the big bang, and or before last contraction of the universe, or before...
since there is nothing at that point, no time to be measured and no space to measure it in.

So no, I'm not saying the Bible is closer to the truth than science. I'm saying they are both opinions that can't be proven when it comes to the point of creation. Science limits itself to the moment right after that.

And if you know of explanations that tell of what was there before the big bang or what was there when the very first expansion of the universe happened in science, I'd like to hear it. (not being sarcastic, I honestly haven't heard one so far)

I believe Hawking himself said if there was a contracting and expanding universe, there was no telling where, why and how it all started.

And yes, if we don't have anything to validate our opinions with, it's just empty discussion. Like the Byzantian Bickering about the sex of angels, it can only help you to work on your skills in discussion, but that's all.

I think lately what we are seeing is that most people now put just as much blind faith in the lab-assistent, physics professor and doctor. When one of those says something, it *must* be true.
How about using that same science of theirs, and verifying it once or twice. If only so you understand it yourself?

TIO · 10-24-2003, 12:18 AM

Nisses, I <i>have</i> performed some of their experiments and come up with the right results. I have observed the mathematical devices which the theories are drawn from, and how they don't fall down. I have a pure mathematics major with four semesters of theoretical physics, please don't accuse me of not understanding the science.
I take the word of a professor because I know that he has spent many years observing the world around him, and using his observations to create new theories and test the theories of those before him.
I will not take the word of a minister because I know that he has spent many years reading one source, and conferring with others who also base their arguments on that one reference. Go and write a scientific paper based on one refererence and one reference alone. Do not perform any experiments to support your hypothesis, but make sure that the hypothesis is not falsifiable. See how seriously anyone takes you.

Nisses · 10-24-2003, 01:54 AM

So you can tell me what happened before then? By all means explain. I can't wait to hear it. (again, not being sarcastic, I'm trying to learn something new)

also: did I accuse you of not understanding science? I'm sorry, didn't mean to. I'm just saying that most people these days put just as much blind faith in a professor than they used to do in a minister.

See my last line in the previous post? You are the kind of person I was talking about. The kind that more people should be like.

stingc · 10-24-2003, 05:53 AM

I think Nisses is saying that no matter how science progresses, there will always be something left that must be taken as axiomatic. Say Newton's laws 200 years ago. They explained a lot of things, but nothing explained them.

Spritebox · 10-24-2003, 01:11 PM

In our modern society, survival of the fittest doesn't mean the fittest hunters, but the people with the most common sense and intellect to survive (i.e.,make enough money to live on).

Therefore, if one applied the natural selection to humans today, those who are in a permanent state of poverty should be dismissed so that the rest of us may flourish. That way, no one would have to pay as many taxes to assist the poor, and our nation as a whole would prosper.

But this point is only valid to one who believes in materialism as a lifestyle (i.e. most citizens of america).

I've though about a world in which the sick would die - no hospitals or perscriptions. A world in which the poor would die out without the assistance of welfare. A world in which the stupid would be sent away and enslaved to a life of labor...

I really don't know whether or not that world would be for better or for worse...But natural selection would apply to humans once again, since we seem to be so goddamn evasive of its grasp.

happyraul · 10-24-2003, 03:53 PM

the fact that someone does not make enough money to live on is no indicator of that person's common sense and intellect, nor is having a ton of money an indicator that you have a lot of common sense or intellect, therefore what you were suggesting is not only a change for the worse, but it is also immoral.

XenuHubbard · 10-24-2003, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spritebox
In our modern society, survival of the fittest doesn't mean the fittest hunters, but the people with the most common sense and intellect to survive (i.e.,make enough money to live on).

Therefore, if one applied the natural selection to humans today, those who are in a permanent state of poverty should be dismissed so that the rest of us may flourish. That way, no one would have to pay as many taxes to assist the poor, and our nation as a whole would prosper.

But this point is only valid to one who believes in materialism as a lifestyle (i.e. most citizens of america).

I've though about a world in which the sick would die - no hospitals or perscriptions. A world in which the poor would die out without the assistance of welfare. A world in which the stupid would be sent away and enslaved to a life of labor...

I really don't know whether or not that world would be for better or for worse...But natural selection would apply to humans once again, since we seem to be so goddamn evasive of its grasp.

Oh, that place exists. It's called Somalia. It isn't working very well, I've heard.

Ubie · 10-25-2003, 02:04 AM

So tell me.....

Why does there always have to be a begining?

Oob

Ubie · 10-25-2003, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spritebox
In our modern society, survival of the fittest doesn't mean the fittest hunters, but the people with the most common sense and intellect to survive

A very valid agruement....

Quote:

(i.e.,make enough money to live on).

however you faltered there. Money have no relevence on survival at a whole. The ability to think and use common sense to get you to a goal is the way of life now. A poor man will only be poor as long as he sits, complains, and does nothing about the fact of him being poor. Once he gets up and does something about it he has a better chance to succeed.

Quote:

Therefore, if one applied the natural selection to humans today, those who are in a permanent state of poverty should be dismissed so that the rest of us may flourish.

Dismisal is ignorance, ignorance is bliss, bliss is a false livelihood. If you simply dismiss the fact that your fellow man is in need, then you are dismissing yourself as man. Man's overwhelming compassion for his fellow has always dragged him behind, but in the same manner has helped him thrive.
I do believe that we should all help eachother, but not in the same way that it is being done now.

Quote:

I've though about a world in which the sick would die - no hospitals or perscriptions. A world in which the poor would die out without the assistance of welfare.

Physical evolution died the moment we became "civilized". Albiet some small changes in evolution have occured, society will never rid itself of deseases that would have worked their way out of the pool if only allowed.

Quote:

I really don't know whether or not that world would be for better or for worse...But natural selection would apply to humans once again, since we seem to be so goddamn evasive of its grasp.

Very well said.

Oob

empu · 11-03-2003, 09:41 PM

Read The Origin of Species. Whether you think you agree with Darwin in whole or in part or not at all. Read it. Think about it.

Cheesebreath · 11-27-2003, 09:37 AM

Wow... try reading the actual theory people before you comment on it. Some of you sound like you don't know what the heck you are talking about.

Dragonlich · 11-27-2003, 10:29 AM

I saw a documentary on the telly the other day, about this village in Brittain that had a very high percentage of survivors during the plague years that swept through a large part of Europe (in ye olde medieval days). A scientist looked a bit closer at the case, and noticed that a lot of the people living there today were descendents of the original plague-survivors. It also turned out that they had a genetic "defect", which is linked to the immune system. Apparently, this gene makes it impossible for the plague virus to enter white blood cells, stopping it in it's tracks.

Interestingly, the relatives of those that did not get the plague at all have two copies of said gene, while the relatives of those who got the plague but recovered only have one.

Even more interestingly, it turns out that accross Europe, the population in areas visited by the plague has a much higher occurance of this specific gene, when compared to the people in the area *not* exposed to the plague.

Now, if you're still with me... Does this not make it very likely that Darwin was right? After all, the "unfit" died during the plague, while those who were "fittest" survived. And all of that because of a slight difference in their genes.

(another thing: the AIDS virus attacks the body in pretty much the same way as the Plague does. This means that people who are better at fighting the plague are also better at fighting AIDS... There are people in the US who have no AIDS, even though they "should" have had it, considering their situation - partner of AIDS-victim, etc. Again, the same gene was found... It turns out that some 40% of the US population has a higher resistance to AIDS, because they have one copy of the gene; and some appear to be immune because they have two copies.)

Mantus · 11-27-2003, 10:57 AM

To answer to the original post, and hopefully get back on topic.

Survival of the fittest doesn’t really apply to our species anymore.

While it may still seem that the physical condition is still important for finding a mate, its actually just a relic of the past. We are on the brink of taking our physical evolution into our own hands though genetics and robotics. Once that is achieved only the quality of the mind will remain as an important criteria for evolution. Since our brain has evolved at such an amazing rate that we have not unlocked its full potential, it is at the moment impossible to know who has the best minds, and therefore the best genes. By the time we uncover the mysteries within our skulls, genetics probably wont matter at all.

Dilbert1234567 · 12-06-2003, 10:48 PM

Back in high school I was shunned by about half of my peers because I believe in evolution, and wore it on my sleeve., I had some real trouble with some of them. Although they never outright attacked me, they did have a tendency to trip me all the time, shoves in the hall etc. since my sophomore year I had a 'evolve' patch on my back pack, the first time it was cut off (sometime when i was in the hall) and the second time (i bought a new one) it was set on fire (pissed me off) as it turned out no one saw a thing.

But as for why I believe in evolution is that it beats the alternative, creationism. it just makes more sense. I’ve always been very analytical as well as being open-minded to science and mathematics, I always loved to deal with chance and have come to recognizes that no mater how minute the possibility is, it can still happen. And being as large as the universe is, that is has happened multiple times across the great expanse.

CSflim · 12-07-2003, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dilbert1234567
Back in high school I was shunned by about half of my peers because I believe in evolution, and wore it on my sleeve., I had some real trouble with some of them. Although they never outright attacked me, they did have a tendency to trip me all the time, shoves in the hall etc. since my sophomore year I had a 'evolve' patch on my back pack, the first time it was cut off (sometime when i was in the hall) and the second time (i bought a new one) it was set on fire (pissed me off) as it turned out no one saw a thing.

Hooray for loving, caring and accepting christians. They really are a model for us all!

Easytiger · 12-07-2003, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mantus
To answer to the original post, and hopefully get back on topic.

Survival of the fittest doesn’t really apply to our species anymore.

While it may still seem that the physical condition is still important for finding a mate, its actually just a relic of the past.

I'm always reluctant to post in Tilted Philosophy, but this thread is interesting. I've noticed a few people who seem to think that humans are somehow outside of Darwinian evolution thanks to our advanced technology and our dazzling social mechanisms.

Let me put this simply- as long as we can still die out, we are subject to evolution. Despite what Mantus is saying, we are still at risk of extinction, even in some glorious Stelarcian/Kurzweilian future. Death is the driving mechanism of evolution, people; let's not forget that.

I'll agree that it's getting less likely that humanity will become extinct in the near future (we've got numbers and we've got opposable thumbs), but all species become extinct in the end. We're fragile creatures living in a universe which is more or less inimical to life. The odds are always monstrously against life, and we don't have the power to shorten the odds.

John Henry · 12-08-2003, 03:46 AM

There is a peaceful way for CSflim and Rubyee to settle their dispute. Please, both of you, click here . And let us know the result.

Tman144 · 12-08-2003, 08:26 AM

I took that test and the only thing that got me was that they said evolution has no irrefutable proof. Thats a bunch of crap, we see evolution happen all the time. Viruses change constantly due to natural selection. They say that science gives no actual "facts." But evolution is as sure as a rock falling down if I throw it into the air (remember, gravity is a 'theory').

John Henry · 12-08-2003, 11:25 AM

Hmm. That's ass. I guess I took a different path. It didn't ask me that. I was hoping it would help to root out any logical inconsistencies in either person's argument so that both of them would have something approaching a well thought out, logical argument before they continued discussing it here. Y'know, just in case one of them didn't make much sense.

CSflim · 12-08-2003, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tman144
we see evolution happen all the time. Viruses change constantly due to natural selection. They say that science gives no actual "facts." But evolution is as sure as a rock falling down if I throw it into the air (remember, gravity is a 'theory').

Ah ha! But thats "micro-evolution".

I'm going to define anything that you can demonstrate to me in the lab as microevolution, therefore you have proven nothing.

And no, they are not the exact same thing except on a different scale.

Easytiger · 12-08-2003, 04:46 PM

Really? I'm curious, as I'm not a biologist, but I assume that micro- and macro-evolution are as linked as micro- and macro-economics, which I DO understand. Can you expand on this, CSfilm?

Snakedance · 12-09-2003, 10:37 AM

I was just thinking about the grandmother with diabetes. Once that are no longer fertile their impact on "survival of the fittest changes". The entire story is let the best genes win. Call it a theory or whatever. Jump on a Bible and deny Darwinism. It doesnt matter. We are nothing more than genetic transport systems (with or without souls). Success leads to passing on your genes for the next generation. If you have a problem that manifests itself after you have reproduced it has little impact on survival of your genes. The only caveat is that your genetic problem may become an anchor on your children and keep them form reproducing and passing on genes.

The most successful genes are the most successfully passed on to the next generation. Call it Darwinism or whatever, but if the only food was peanut butter then anybody that could not genetically digest pnuts would die out pretty quickly. My children would prosper however.

dy156 · 12-09-2003, 10:42 AM

I didn't know whether to post this here or on the proof that God exists thread, so I'll post it on both, because I have never heard this but it really made me think and I hope it generates discussion. It come from Greg Easterbrook, a guy that writes a football column, called the TMQ (Tuesday Morning Quarterback), that has football anaysis and alot of his thoughts on a wide range of topics. You can find threads about him and his column, and the controversy surrounding it in the politics or sports forums (fora?) Anyway, here it is.

Quote:

TMQ is a churchgoer who believes there are higher powers and a life to come, but since the Bible tells us nothing about what the afterlife may be like, I don't pretend to know details. I can note, however, that the dying in many places having similar mental experiences is not "impossible" absent the supernatural. There may be a perfectly natural reason why people facing mortality see hallways of peace or wisdom: because that is what culture conditions people to expect on death. (Let's hope it's right!) As for the bright lights the dying sometimes report experiencing, this article by Brendan Koerner explains mundane physical theories. Among them are that brain anoxia, or oxygen depravation, causes the optic nerves to sense white; and that at death the body releases all stored endorphins (no need to keep saving them) to stop mortal agony and create a sense of peace, making dying less traumatic.

The latter biological possibility is actually one of the reasons TMQ believes that human beings were made by a God who loves us. Why would natural selection have cared about reducing a person's trauma at death? All natural selection cares about is fitness in passing down genes; if after replicating its DNA an organism dies in pain or panic, what's that to evolution? In Darwinian terms, there would be no "selection pressure" favoring the peaceful death over the horrible death. Yet there appear to be biological mechanisms that help most people die peacefully. Why are such mechanisms in our physiologies? Maybe because somebody loves us.

article mentioned in column

link to full TMQ

Dragonlich · 12-09-2003, 10:48 AM

CSFilm/Easytiger, going back to my previous comments on the plague in Europe: a small (micro-sized) difference in DNA leads to a large (macro-sized) difference in survival chances. One tiny genetic "abnormality" has become the norm in the whole of western Europe as a result. This genetic difference also leads to a slight difference in resistance to AIDS.

If we move the whole scene forward: if nature is allowed to take it's course, pretty much the whole of Africa will die of AIDS, *except* those people that are resistant, thanks to genetic mutations. Sure, these people may not have an extra arm, or be able to breath underwater, but they're different nonetheless. This is pretty much what evolution is all about - small mutations leading to enhanced survivability. In the long run, those small mutations will add up to a huge difference.

Hell, we force animals to mutate every single day: professional (dog/horse/cow) breeders select animals with the traits they want to enhance, and let them breed. The results are apparent: all the breeds of dogs you see today have a common ancestor. Some of these dogs have more fur than others (allowing them to survive in cold areas), some have extremely short legs (allowing them to enter rabbit holes), some even have a very oily coat (allowing them to swim in freezing water), etc. etc.. Clearly large (macro) differences.

Right?

CSflim · 12-09-2003, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CSflim
Ah ha! But thats "micro-evolution".

I'm going to define anything that you can demonstrate to me in the lab as microevolution, therefore you have proven nothing.

And no, they are not the exact same thing except on a different scale.

sorry just to clarify this. This

was to denote sarcasm.

It used to be a popular argument by creationists to claim that nobody has ever witnessed evolution, or that it has never happened in the lab.

Then it did happen in the lab.

Although this didn't seen to stop the creationists. they simply define evolution on the small scale (i.e. anything which can be observed) as microevolution. And they then revert to their original argument that nobody has witnessed evolution!!

Of course microevolution and macroevolution are EXACTLY the same thing.

Easytiger · 12-09-2003, 03:59 PM

Dammit, now I feel like a right fool. Especially since I use so much sarcasm in my everyday life.

10-19-2003, 09:00 AM	#46 (permalink)
DownwardSpiral The Funeral of Hearts Location: Trapped inside my mind. . .	Hmm, how about this. Who cares about where we came from or what Darwin says or what the Bible says? We will never know exactly where humans came from or how we came about 100%. So why worry about it? Religious people will stick to their "God" creating man, and others will say evolution. I personally think that as I stated earlier, evolution makes more sense than one entity creating all man, but evolution is farfetched as well. But does it really matter where we came from? Honestly. This is a question of faith vs. science, and it will never be resolved. So just let it go. I'm in the same boat as Rubyee here, earlier you stated that you didn't care about what created you or something along those lines, and I agree. __________________ "So Keep on Pretending. Our Heavens Worth the Waiting. Keep on Pretending. It's Alright." -- H.I.M., "Pretending" Last edited by DownwardSpiral; 10-19-2003 at 09:04 AM..

10-21-2003, 10:56 AM	#48 (permalink)
prosequence Psycho Location: YOUR MOM!!	There's one good ting about darwin's idea, survival of the fitest, I can kill people I don't like and take their stuff. __________________ And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

10-22-2003, 02:36 PM	#53 (permalink)
Nisses Shade Location: Belgium	the point of this discussion is usually that it runs away with both parties and leads them on a tanget so far they can't remember how they started in the first place. Darwinism speaks of survival of the fittest. Which means there is a role to be filled, with certain requirements. If you are most fit to fulfill that role, you will survive as a species. No idea what individual animals/people will do, but that's not the point. Darwinism tells us how all kinds of live can likely have evolved and backs it up with some credible evidence. It has the flaw that it starts with life. It doesn't explain life itself. So did God create life? If we go by remnants left in the earth, we can see he did not directly create it. We can recreate alot of basic carbon-strings that might easily lead to RNA and DNA strings eventually, even in an everyday lab. Does that mean there is nothing at all special? I don't know that for sure. Where does the Big Laboratory come from? Big Bang? Contracting and expanding universe? Fine. Where did those come from then? Separate black holes exploding? Fine, where did the whole of it come from then? We don't know. We can only logically deduct things. Empirical evidence of what came before that, can't be found, since according to all our standards there wasn't any time or space before that period. ie. At present our science has no explanation for it. They can't say what came before that. All they tell us, has as much value as what the Bible tells us. So you might as well believe it was God that created the universe or even Joe Pesci. Somehow this universe came to exist and what happened before the very first millisecond, is beyond our grasp. I'd call that super-natural. __________________ Moderation should be moderately moderated.

10-22-2003, 07:46 PM	#54 (permalink)
TIO Addict Location: The Land Down Under	Nisses, our science does have explainations. They just haven't been verified yet. Are you saying that the Bible is closer to the truth? One book has a better idea than generations of scientific research? Sure, we're not 100% certain about everything that's ever happened. But we're pretty sure about the way some things have happened, and we've learned that by looking at our universe and trying to explain it, rather than taking what one person wrote thousands of years ago as, quite literally, gospel. Downward Spiral, I find your attitude somewhat worrying. Just because we don't know something, doesn't make it worth discussing? I think our uncertainty makes the discussion all the more worthwhile! And in the course of this discussion, some people have learned a few new things about evolution, darwinism and creationism, so I think it was worthwhile. __________________ Strewth

10-22-2003, 11:58 PM	#55 (permalink)
Nisses Shade Location: Belgium	If you look at the facts that are there, we can never tell what came before the big bang, and or before last contraction of the universe, or before... since there is nothing at that point, no time to be measured and no space to measure it in. So no, I'm not saying the Bible is closer to the truth than science. I'm saying they are both opinions that can't be proven when it comes to the point of creation. Science limits itself to the moment right after that. And if you know of explanations that tell of what was there before the big bang or what was there when the very first expansion of the universe happened in science, I'd like to hear it. (not being sarcastic, I honestly haven't heard one so far) I believe Hawking himself said if there was a contracting and expanding universe, there was no telling where, why and how it all started. And yes, if we don't have anything to validate our opinions with, it's just empty discussion. Like the Byzantian Bickering about the sex of angels, it can only help you to work on your skills in discussion, but that's all. I think lately what we are seeing is that most people now put just as much blind faith in the lab-assistent, physics professor and doctor. When one of those says something, it must be true. How about using that same science of theirs, and verifying it once or twice. If only so you understand it yourself? __________________ Moderation should be moderately moderated.

10-15-2003, 08:32 PM	#41 (permalink)
saltfish !?!No hay pantalones!?! Location: Indian-no-place	Quote: "I believe in adaptability and survival of the fittest. Macro evolution has been proven but micro hasn't. " The concept of micro-evolution - or diversification of species - is a fact of nature. Species do vary and change, but only on a small scale. We have many examples of Darwin's finches and even the breeding history of dogs which supports the notion of micro-evolution. (http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner...icro_Evol.html) Umm-huh.. Yeah... -SF

10-15-2003, 08:38 PM	#42 (permalink)
stingc Psycho Location: PA	Rubyee, Everyone's jumping on you because this is a discussion about things that have actually happened. We're not asking your favorite icecream flavor. Unless you don't believe in the concept of an objective reality (I don't think you're saying this), then there is only one right answer. We're discussing what that answer is. Of course you can believe whatever you want, but nobody cares what you believe. We care why. This is a discussion, not a poll.

10-16-2003, 01:25 PM	#45 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	ah....just for the record I never said that Darwin created social Darwinism (but he was quoted supporting it though...)

10-19-2003, 04:36 PM	#47 (permalink)
matt_mll Crazy Location: some volcano in the middle of the pacific	I am a strong believer in darwanism. Natures way of trial by error. If something fails, it dies and doesn't reproduce; but if something works the creature survives and is able to reproduce. Compounded over millions (or billions) of generations and something is bound to happen (hence our existance). Sorry, creationism doesn't work for me. For a good laugh and a practical application of darwinism check out www.darwinawards.com. It's full of all the "creative" ways that people have removed themselves from the gene pool.

10-24-2003, 12:18 AM	#56 (permalink)
TIO Addict Location: The Land Down Under	Nisses, I <i>have</i> performed some of their experiments and come up with the right results. I have observed the mathematical devices which the theories are drawn from, and how they don't fall down. I have a pure mathematics major with four semesters of theoretical physics, please don't accuse me of not understanding the science. I take the word of a professor because I know that he has spent many years observing the world around him, and using his observations to create new theories and test the theories of those before him. I will not take the word of a minister because I know that he has spent many years reading one source, and conferring with others who also base their arguments on that one reference. Go and write a scientific paper based on one refererence and one reference alone. Do not perform any experiments to support your hypothesis, but make sure that the hypothesis is not falsifiable. See how seriously anyone takes you. __________________ Strewth

10-24-2003, 01:54 AM	#57 (permalink)
Nisses Shade Location: Belgium	So you can tell me what happened before then? By all means explain. I can't wait to hear it. (again, not being sarcastic, I'm trying to learn something new) also: did I accuse you of not understanding science? I'm sorry, didn't mean to. I'm just saying that most people these days put just as much blind faith in a professor than they used to do in a minister. See my last line in the previous post? You are the kind of person I was talking about. The kind that more people should be like. __________________ Moderation should be moderately moderated.

10-24-2003, 05:53 AM	#58 (permalink)
stingc Psycho Location: PA	I think Nisses is saying that no matter how science progresses, there will always be something left that must be taken as axiomatic. Say Newton's laws 200 years ago. They explained a lot of things, but nothing explained them.

10-24-2003, 01:11 PM	#59 (permalink)
Spritebox Insane Location: Charlotte, N.C.	In our modern society, survival of the fittest doesn't mean the fittest hunters, but the people with the most common sense and intellect to survive (i.e.,make enough money to live on). Therefore, if one applied the natural selection to humans today, those who are in a permanent state of poverty should be dismissed so that the rest of us may flourish. That way, no one would have to pay as many taxes to assist the poor, and our nation as a whole would prosper. But this point is only valid to one who believes in materialism as a lifestyle (i.e. most citizens of america). I've though about a world in which the sick would die - no hospitals or perscriptions. A world in which the poor would die out without the assistance of welfare. A world in which the stupid would be sent away and enslaved to a life of labor... I really don't know whether or not that world would be for better or for worse...But natural selection would apply to humans once again, since we seem to be so goddamn evasive of its grasp. __________________ it's all nice on ice alright and it's not day and it's not night but it's all nice on ice alright

10-24-2003, 03:53 PM	#60 (permalink)
happyraul Crazy Location: St. Louis, MO	the fact that someone does not make enough money to live on is no indicator of that person's common sense and intellect, nor is having a ton of money an indicator that you have a lot of common sense or intellect, therefore what you were suggesting is not only a change for the worse, but it is also immoral.

10-25-2003, 02:04 AM	#62 (permalink)
Ubie Upright Location: Kirkland, WA	So tell me..... Why does there always have to be a begining? Oob __________________ 4 out of 5 doctors agree...it's not just for techno anymore. Visit www.digital-nw.com for more info.

11-03-2003, 09:41 PM	#64 (permalink)
empu Crazy	Read The Origin of Species. Whether you think you agree with Darwin in whole or in part or not at all. Read it. Think about it.

11-27-2003, 09:37 AM	#65 (permalink)
Cheesebreath Upright Location: U.S.A.	Wow... try reading the actual theory people before you comment on it. Some of you sound like you don't know what the heck you are talking about. __________________ It's better to have loved and lost, then never to have loved before.

11-27-2003, 10:29 AM	#66 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	I saw a documentary on the telly the other day, about this village in Brittain that had a very high percentage of survivors during the plague years that swept through a large part of Europe (in ye olde medieval days). A scientist looked a bit closer at the case, and noticed that a lot of the people living there today were descendents of the original plague-survivors. It also turned out that they had a genetic "defect", which is linked to the immune system. Apparently, this gene makes it impossible for the plague virus to enter white blood cells, stopping it in it's tracks. Interestingly, the relatives of those that did not get the plague at all have two copies of said gene, while the relatives of those who got the plague but recovered only have one. Even more interestingly, it turns out that accross Europe, the population in areas visited by the plague has a much higher occurance of this specific gene, when compared to the people in the area not exposed to the plague. Now, if you're still with me... Does this not make it very likely that Darwin was right? After all, the "unfit" died during the plague, while those who were "fittest" survived. And all of that because of a slight difference in their genes. (another thing: the AIDS virus attacks the body in pretty much the same way as the Plague does. This means that people who are better at fighting the plague are also better at fighting AIDS... There are people in the US who have no AIDS, even though they "should" have had it, considering their situation - partner of AIDS-victim, etc. Again, the same gene was found... It turns out that some 40% of the US population has a higher resistance to AIDS, because they have one copy of the gene; and some appear to be immune because they have two copies.)

11-27-2003, 10:57 AM	#67 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	To answer to the original post, and hopefully get back on topic. Survival of the fittest doesn’t really apply to our species anymore. While it may still seem that the physical condition is still important for finding a mate, its actually just a relic of the past. We are on the brink of taking our physical evolution into our own hands though genetics and robotics. Once that is achieved only the quality of the mind will remain as an important criteria for evolution. Since our brain has evolved at such an amazing rate that we have not unlocked its full potential, it is at the moment impossible to know who has the best minds, and therefore the best genes. By the time we uncover the mysteries within our skulls, genetics probably wont matter at all.

12-06-2003, 10:48 PM	#68 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	Back in high school I was shunned by about half of my peers because I believe in evolution, and wore it on my sleeve., I had some real trouble with some of them. Although they never outright attacked me, they did have a tendency to trip me all the time, shoves in the hall etc. since my sophomore year I had a 'evolve' patch on my back pack, the first time it was cut off (sometime when i was in the hall) and the second time (i bought a new one) it was set on fire (pissed me off) as it turned out no one saw a thing. But as for why I believe in evolution is that it beats the alternative, creationism. it just makes more sense. I’ve always been very analytical as well as being open-minded to science and mathematics, I always loved to deal with chance and have come to recognizes that no mater how minute the possibility is, it can still happen. And being as large as the universe is, that is has happened multiple times across the great expanse. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

12-08-2003, 03:46 AM	#71 (permalink)
John Henry Addict Location: Grey Britain	There is a peaceful way for CSflim and Rubyee to settle their dispute. Please, both of you, click here . And let us know the result.

12-08-2003, 08:26 AM	#72 (permalink)
Tman144 Tilted	I took that test and the only thing that got me was that they said evolution has no irrefutable proof. Thats a bunch of crap, we see evolution happen all the time. Viruses change constantly due to natural selection. They say that science gives no actual "facts." But evolution is as sure as a rock falling down if I throw it into the air (remember, gravity is a 'theory'). __________________ "Don't touch my belt, you Jesus freak!" -Mr. Gruff the Atheist Goat

12-08-2003, 11:25 AM	#73 (permalink)
John Henry Addict Location: Grey Britain	Hmm. That's ass. I guess I took a different path. It didn't ask me that. I was hoping it would help to root out any logical inconsistencies in either person's argument so that both of them would have something approaching a well thought out, logical argument before they continued discussing it here. Y'know, just in case one of them didn't make much sense.

12-08-2003, 04:46 PM	#75 (permalink)
Easytiger Insane Location: Tigerland	Really? I'm curious, as I'm not a biologist, but I assume that micro- and macro-evolution are as linked as micro- and macro-economics, which I DO understand. Can you expand on this, CSfilm?

12-09-2003, 10:37 AM	#76 (permalink)
Snakedance Enhanced With Psychotrophics Location: Snakepit	I was just thinking about the grandmother with diabetes. Once that are no longer fertile their impact on "survival of the fittest changes". The entire story is let the best genes win. Call it a theory or whatever. Jump on a Bible and deny Darwinism. It doesnt matter. We are nothing more than genetic transport systems (with or without souls). Success leads to passing on your genes for the next generation. If you have a problem that manifests itself after you have reproduced it has little impact on survival of your genes. The only caveat is that your genetic problem may become an anchor on your children and keep them form reproducing and passing on genes. The most successful genes are the most successfully passed on to the next generation. Call it Darwinism or whatever, but if the only food was peanut butter then anybody that could not genetically digest pnuts would die out pretty quickly. My children would prosper however. __________________ "When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity. - Albert Einstein

12-09-2003, 10:48 AM	#78 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	CSFilm/Easytiger, going back to my previous comments on the plague in Europe: a small (micro-sized) difference in DNA leads to a large (macro-sized) difference in survival chances. One tiny genetic "abnormality" has become the norm in the whole of western Europe as a result. This genetic difference also leads to a slight difference in resistance to AIDS. If we move the whole scene forward: if nature is allowed to take it's course, pretty much the whole of Africa will die of AIDS, except those people that are resistant, thanks to genetic mutations. Sure, these people may not have an extra arm, or be able to breath underwater, but they're different nonetheless. This is pretty much what evolution is all about - small mutations leading to enhanced survivability. In the long run, those small mutations will add up to a huge difference. Hell, we force animals to mutate every single day: professional (dog/horse/cow) breeders select animals with the traits they want to enhance, and let them breed. The results are apparent: all the breeds of dogs you see today have a common ancestor. Some of these dogs have more fur than others (allowing them to survive in cold areas), some have extremely short legs (allowing them to enter rabbit holes), some even have a very oily coat (allowing them to swim in freezing water), etc. etc.. Clearly large (macro) differences. Right?

12-09-2003, 03:59 PM	#80 (permalink)
Easytiger Insane Location: Tigerland	Dammit, now I feel like a right fool. Especially since I use so much sarcasm in my everyday life.