Evolution question.

Discussion in 'Science and the Universe' started by Penguin, Aug 12, 2008.

  1. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    Selection, selection. Its not possible for you to replace the parents of all of these kids under the pretense that you would do a better job. You must take into account the parent-child connection and the fact that children inherit parental baggage -- its part of the process as you say. Wipe out inheritance and apparent weaknesses, and you could wipe out a hidden feature that strengthens the species. Diversity, diversity.
     
  2. seattlegal

    seattlegal Mercuræn Buddhist

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,635
    Likes Received:
    110
    What if your child came to believe in God on his or her own? Would you resort to 'conditioning' your child out of it, or would you grant your child 'freedom of mind?'
     
  3. Bruno's logic

    Bruno's logic Agnostic/Panthiest

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. Tao_Equus

    Tao_Equus Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    0

    We make laws and create the social structure necessary to prevent our children smoking, having sex, drinking alcohol, driving cars, buying porn and seeing 'scary movies'. It is not like we do not already have the wherewithal to nurture our children without some cultural barriers that declare certain areas 'adult only'. The Bible and Koran are both full of violent and pornographic imagery we would not accept from any other source. Why the hypocrisy? Because the religions know full well, bring up the average child free from the brain-wipe and then the average adult it develops into could never swallow that kind of irrational nonsense.

    I brought my child up as free from religious influence as I was capable. What he chooses in his life is his business. I would will continue to love and support him whether he becomes a priest or a psychopath or as he is hoping to become, an architect.


    tao
     
  5. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    You're kidding right? The integrity of anything is only as sound as the person using it...science is no different than religion and that aspect.

    Also, I would have asked the question pretty much the same way, and I'm not that young...lol:D
     
  6. Tao_Equus

    Tao_Equus Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you had continued reading you might have seen me admit that statement was a bad one.


    Maybe you would have. Had I not known you a little I might then have assumed you to be quite young. The subject is covered in this country quite comprehensively in school science lessons. Forgive me for presuming that all adults have such basic knowledge.

    tao
     
  7. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Well I am a scientist and an engineer. And I still would have asked the question the same way.
     
  8. Penguin

    Penguin Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    2
    I don't even have basic knowledge of Science :eek: I wasn't offered it as an option at school and took other subjects.
    I know what a Bunson burner is though and the periodic table:D
     
  9. Dogbrain

    Dogbrain New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0

    Since when? That is not how evolution works. Your biology teachers need to be flogged for gross incompetence.

    Evolution is not like replacing an old model of car with a newer one. It is not consumerist in nature.
     
  10. Dogbrain

    Dogbrain New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    There was no trigger. That is, at no time in the past has life ever been stable, unevolving, unchanging. Anything alive has evolution inherent in the instability of living existence. Instability is inherent in our universe, down to the subatomic level.
     
  11. Dogbrain

    Dogbrain New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's put this another way: Are you simultaneously a monkey and an Aardvark? There is some reality to this concept of species, even if it is difficult to pin down how to distinguish among them.
     
  12. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,039
    Likes Received:
    2,060
    Can't help myself, it has been running through my head...think Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

    "I evolved from a shrew."

    "Evolved from a shrew?"

    "I gawt bettah."
     
  13. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    419
    Welcome to CR Dogbrain.

    You offer a red herring. I asked for a simple and irrefutable definition of the term "species." I am familiar with at least two primary definitions, that contradict each other. And typically those who use evolution as a baseball bat to beat creationists about the head conflate and confuse the two randomly and ignorantly.

    Monkeys and aardvarks generally are not touted as new species if the size of their nose changes...but Galapagos finches frequently are. Seems to me a rather dissimilar and convenient application...when the grant money fits, use the definition that is most provocative, and nevermind clarifying the discrepency for the lay persons.

    It's another inconvenient truth that the path started with finches ends up at eugenics...
     
  14. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Or possibly Eugenics wars...
     
  15. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    There is a 3% difference between monkey's and man (at most)yet we can't interbreed. There is a 12% difference between man and aardvark...

    There is no reality to the concept of interspecies, or any species you've brought to bear concerning relativity to man.

    To consider that man evolved from the ape, the question is "what" ape? Certainly not the apes alive today. And anthropology has yet to hit the billion dollar link that solidly makes us part of the ape family. Theory is not proof.

    Don't get me wrong. I believe in evolution, just not exactly the way others do.:eek:
     
  16. Dogbrain

    Dogbrain New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your claims are decades out of date, based on the coding sequences of a handful of genes. Things have turned out to be very different once we have sequenced entire genomes.
     
  17. path_of_one

    path_of_one Embracing the Mystery

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not really, Q. Australopithecines are the clear link between the apes that precede them and Homo habilis who appears later down the line. There were some clear dead-ends (the robust Australopithecines) and some clear gracile versions leading to H. habilis.

    Some critter had to be the first one who stood upright and walked around. These were the Australopithecines. And they are very clearly transitional. The early ones had foramen magnums that are centrally located (like humans), indicating bipedality, yet their fingers and toes were still curved bone (indicating a body built for tree-climbing). Their heads look pretty much exactly like modern chimps, except for that centralized foramen magnum, only found in bipedal primates. Clearly, something in bipedal locomotion strongly favored larger brain size, as down the line H. habilis shows an increase in brain size and the first stone tools.

    I really don't understand why everyone talks about missing links. When I line up the skeletons in the lab, I don't really see anything missing. Sure, we may find more species out there, but in terms of a really clear progression from ancient (and now extinct) ape to (now extinct) Australopithecine to H. habilis to H. erectus to early Archaic H. species to Neanderthals and modern H. sapiens... it's a pretty clear line. We don't know everything about who was breeding with who and yet the skeletal evidence is so plain that I've had non-biology people in their first class go "Wow- I didn't know you could SEE it!" The mosaic of human traits is pretty evident.
     
  18. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    I'll differ to your expertice on that...
     
  19. Tao_Equus

    Tao_Equus Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    I doubt that, you may differ on your opinion but what expertise will you bring?

    I recently watched a documentary online that interviewed people in the streets of some bible-belt town. It quickly became apparent that Mr and Mrs Average American Christian had virtually no understanding of evolution theory and that their creationist dogma was built upon the indignation they felt at being associated with 'lowly animals'. The level of ignorance was startling, the racial prejudice simmered just below the boil and arrogance of the most ugly kind, the kind that gave rise to the Third Reich, seemed to pervade the town like some plague. Evolution is not about belief. It IS about facts. But to try and tell that to these people would be futile. They were so anally retentive that their brains were already stewed beyond rational in their own s**t. This is what religion can do to people and why you will see me continuing to be disgusted by it.

    tao
     
  20. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    419
    I suspect Q meant "defer," not "differ."

    Aside, the tragedy of eugenic thinking (which stems *directly* from Darwinian evolution) was the second world war and the *assumption* of a "master" race superior to others...which led to the assumption that other "inferior" races could then be dealt with as sub-human.

    Sadly Tao, no, for all of the justification and validation Hitler's regime sought from religious (i.e.: Vatican) sources, the atrocities of the concentration camps and human medical experiments were the result *directly* of institutionalized scientific dogma in the form of eugenics.
     

Share This Page