An "Evolutionary" Step Backwards?

Remove all ads!

Um... firstly, I think the word you're looking for is "fathom".
Secondly just because someone doesn't believe in god doesn't mean that they have no moral code. For example I don't really believe in god but I still think its wrong to go out and kill people for the hell of it.
And I think you would have a hard time trying to convince all the people who lost family and friends that there was some sort of higher purpose to a devastating disaster like the tsunami.

 

Ah, fathom would be better then.

Even if you are an atheist, you are just as unable to give a reason for your moral code. A Christian says "Because God told us", but you can only say "Because".

Why would I do that?

[ February 22, 2005, 21:08: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

Well, to clarify my views, your previous post states that:
"I imply that if a god exists(the one we kept talking about) then he has caused the great flood.
And yes, then it would be just, fair and whatnot, because he defines what just and fair is it."

I don't think it would be just or fair, since these are human concepts, and I really don't think anyone would call what happened just or fair ( although interestingly there was a priest in scotland who blamed the tsunami on god's wrath towards the "sinners" there, which goes to show you small-minded religious scare-mongering is still gasping for air, even in this enlgihtened age)

Anyway, to get back on topic, and also because that didn't actually clarify any of my views,
in my opinion the Bible is only of any use now to give a basic grounding in morality. The "thou shalt not kill" part is fair enough, but the majority of it is essentially there to put the fear of god in people as a form of control.
In summation the Bible's version of events can only be taken as a metaphor ar best and teaching it to children as a legitimate theory for the beginning of the universe is fundamentally flawed.

Phew, that's probably the most i've ever managed to write but say nothing at all at the same time.

 

You can say that because you are an atheist.
If God exists, then justice and fairness would be divine concepts.

Was that a flame? [No - that was not a flame, it was a commentary on a particular Scottish individual and what he had to say and had nothing to do with you - dmc]

--
Edit:
fair enough, maybe I came over as insulted, but it was no big deal, I should have used a smilie.
--

Mind you, I am no Christian, a quick scan of the old religious threads here will quickly show that.

And how can one enforce 'proper' morals on the crowd without control?

See my first post in this thread.

[ February 23, 2005, 20:43: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

If I understand correctly it wasn't a flame, makes it a little clearer if you put a "that" between you and small. ("Just goes to show you..." is a turn of phrase)

 

Yeah, it wan't a flame. sorry if it sounded like that, I'll try to be clearer in future.

 

Darkthorne, I'm basically saying that if you can't teach Religeon in schools because it offends the Aethiests, then you should exclude certain theories that offend the Religeous. You can't please everybody, so at least try to offend them equally.

As for the med student, he pays the piper to play the tune that will see him authorized to practice Medicine at the end. If those who grant that certification deem that Evolution is part of that tune, then guess what--it's in the curriculum, and the med student is paying for that...

 

@ Carcaroth and Chimera

Well, as it so happens I am one of those people with a biology degree, and I think the truth actually lies somewhere between the two opinions that you have. First of all, it cannot be argued that the advances of technology and medicine have greatly increased the length and quality of life. Also, because of these improvements, many people who would die in childhood (and thus be considered to have fitness = 0 as they would produce no offspring), now go on to live full lives.

That having been said, no amount of technological improvements or medical improvements can stop evolution altogether. That is because of the simple process of point mutations that occur all the time. Yes, there are environmental causes that increase the chance of mutations, but there is no way to make mutation rate = 0. So, while I agree that modern developments have widened the circle of who is considered "fit", and have therefore reduced one of the sources for evolution to occur, I have to disagree that human evolution has been stopped altogether. Maybe the herd isn't culled as much, but there are still others that are better equipped (genetically) to handle what comes in life.

 

I did not mention anything about the tempo of evolution, so what between are you talking about?

 

I just caught this topic, and felt like addressing this. It's obviously not the wrong time for them to die, or they would still be alive. What human can define what time is the right time?

 

Aldeth, I guess that there are many misconceptions about Evolution, and what constitutes Evolution. If you would say I was evolved from my Parents, I would just look at it as biological diversity between one generation to the next. I still have trouble envisioning a species "changing" into another species over a number of generations though. And I've heard that creationism used the term "creative periods" used in place of the word day as in the Bible.

The Big Bang could have taken place, but I cannot accept that this earth came about through random chance. I believe that the unorganized material that was strewn across the universe was taken in and organized into a world (this I attribute to God). The various species that we see were created at the beginning of the world, and are basically the same as they were at the time of creation. What you call evolution may simply be natural uniqueness of an individual creature.

 

Something I have a BIG problem with. I keep seeing the phrase that man evolved from monkeys here.

Have you never ever had a science class? It was never ever said by evolution that man evolved from monkeys. GRRRRRRR. Man AND monkeys AND apes all evolved from some common ancestor. Yes, we are all on the same branch but our common origion was something earlier. I think some of the problem is that the Christian and other evolution bashers like to say that man evolved FROM monkeys so that they can then say: Look how dumb that is - this chimp over here is my great grandma? And if I evolved from a chimp then why are men and monkeys both still here? So it makes their feeble arguments seem more logical.

OK, I step down off my soapbox now.

 

[Completely blanking your post after others have replied to it is extremely bad form. Please don't do it again. Your post here will not be removed so that it is obvious who the replies were aimed at.] -Tal

[ February 25, 2005, 22:39: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

@Chimera - basically I was agreeing with you. Carcaroth was saying that he thought evolution in humans wasn't occurring. I was saying that it still does, although the rate at which it is occurring may in fact be decreased.

@Gnarff - No, obviously, you didn't evolve from your parents. In fact, it is ridiculous to even imply that an individual can evolve. Evolution is a term that applies only to a species, not as an individual. This is because your genetic material is basically fixed. Yes, some errors can occur in transcription and translation, and some things you can be exposed to have mutagenic effects, but essentially whatever genetic material you are born with is what you possess for your entire life. That's why it is incorrect to say any individual evolves.

 

The Great Flood might provide a decent argument for someone who wishes to rely on a faith-based point of view, BTA. The Ark specified in the Bible would not be able to house most of the ancient species in the fossil record. I don't recall any small creatures that have become extinct before most written history. I just came up with this on the spot, though, so the argument probably has more holes than Swiss cheese...

 

Chas, I come from a Religeous background, and I bleieve that what Christians reject is anything that states something other than Man being created in the Image of God. Teaching that man evolved from something else denies this, and thus, to them, is blasphemy.

BTA, the way I understand the Creation story, the earth was formed from unorganized matter and these fossil records could have been embedded into the chunks of matter that were used to form the Earth. Therefore, the live specimens would have perished with the old world, and the live specimens may not have lived on that old world to leave fossil records...

Slith, an excellent point. From what I understand, a cubit would be about 16 to 18 inches, making an ark that was 300 cubits by 200 cubits by 60 cubits about 450 feet by 300 feet by 90 feet. Good luck fitting a T-rex or a Brontosaurus on there...

 

Evolution doesn't deny this. We could have evolved from something God created, and the goal of the evolution might be us. (very arrogant isn't it?)

Humans might have reached the end of their evolution, a mutation has no effect on the genepool of our species, a thousand mutations have no effect, it ends up in the genepool and it's specific mutation is annihilated(or dimished, whichever is the best word).
From what I get of evolution is that depends for a part on isolation, a branch is isolated from the rest and evolves further on, on their own specific mutations, and after a while, that isolated species lose their ability to successfully mate with the ancestor species.
With humans, that isn't possible, our species spans the globe, any mutation will lose it's effect when absorbed in the gene pool.
So we could have reached the end, or the height, of our evolution.

Life is possible without God?

Good luck getting a jaguar or a bison in that ark, how did they survive the flood anyway?

[ February 26, 2005, 14:56: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

Because Noah had super God-given powers. God would never ask someone to do something they can not do. Etc. etc.

The argument is always going to be "Gos is great so he requires no explanation."

 

@BTA:

One reason is just the long odds of something dying in the right conditions to make a fossil. To do so, there would have to be massive pressure upon a cadaver to calcify its structure before it decayed completely. This is why amonites (the spiral shell shapes) are so common as fossils. They died at the bottom of the ocean, and the pressure exerted by the sea above them did the job. Land creatures would have to have fallen into a bog (or similar) to preserve them, before deposition accumulated sufficiently to pack the bone tightly enough into the surrounding material, that when the rock formed it took on the shape of the bone.

That's a pretty lengthy list of needs, and some species might have become extinct without one of them dying in the 'right' way. Thus, there are many gaps in fossil records that may only ever be filled in by supposition.

In any case, few creatures remain as they are without evolving over great lengths of time, as conditions change, requiring the evolution of species to survive. Apparently, the best examples of relatively 'unevolved' species are sharks and crocodiles. Both have been living in the same biological niche for millions of years, it seems, without having to have evolved very much at all. They were just that good at killing things already.