Evolution

[Sever]

Wow, this threads out of control! I'm on my lunch break now and haven't the time to read them all. See you in 5 hours eh?

[LordKathen]

Maybe we should start "Evolution 2" and see how that one evolves.

[esquire]

Originally posted by LordKathen: What will the general view of christians be in another hundred?

Hehe, well like all other social instituions in a society religion is subject to change.

Found some interesting numbers for the major religions:

- Christianity - 1.9 billion followers - about 2000 years old
- Islam - 1 billion followers - started AD570
- Buddhism - 330 million followers - started 2500 years ago
- Confucianism - from about 200B.C.E. official religion of China - still has a couple hundred million followers
- Hinduism - 765 million followers - this is the oldest one, started 4500years ago

These are just the major one's not even taking into account the thousands of other sects and cults.

Interestingly if one looks at where population growth is occuring, Christianity will probably be replaced by Islam/Hinduism in a few decades as the one with most followers.


Here is a neat fact, in 1992 a Vatican commission created by Pope John Paul II conceded that the church's silencing of Galileo had been in error!

Hmmm so it took a couple centuries for the church to admit that Galileo was right!!! I figure it will be another 2-300 years before they officially declare evolution to be real as well

[ 02-25-2003, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: esquire ]

[LordKathen]

Originally posted by esquire: Quote: Originally posted by LordKathen: What will the general view of christians be in another hundred?

Hehe, well like all other social instituions in a society religion is subject to change.

Found some interesting numbers for the major religions:

- Christianity - 1.9 billion followers - about 2000 years old
- Islam - 1 billion followers - started AD570
- Buddhism - 330 million followers - started 2500 years ago
- Confucianism - from about 200B.C.E. official religion of China - still has a couple hundred million followers
- Hinduism - 765 million followers - this is the oldest one, started 4500years ago

These are just the major one's not even taking into account the thousands of other sects and cults.

Interestingly if one looks at where population growth is occuring, Christianity will probably be replaced by Islam/Hinduism in a few decades as the one with most followers.


Here is a neat fact, in 1992 a Vatican commission created by Pope John Paul II conceded that the church's silencing of Galileo had been in error!

Hmmm so it took a couple centuries for the church to admit that Galileo was right!!! I figure it will be another 2-300 years before they officially declare evolution to be real as well [/QUOTE][img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img] Nice stats bro.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: It's not the only thing they have. But it's the BEST thing. They could wave their arms. Kick their legs. They could gurgle. They could blink. All behaviours infants are completely capable of. But they don't do any of those to get attention, and more tellingly, they don't try any of these and discover they're not very effective and move onto crying. They just cry. Always, universally. Having a biologically-engineered voice box perfect for getting Mum's attention isn't much good if you don't use it

Do not doctors still smack a babies bottom when it is born to get it to cry so it breathes? If that's still the case, a baby cries before doing anything else.
To cry all you need do is make a generic sound as you exhale. As easy as breathing. Much easier than kicking a leg (conscious action they're still learning) waving an arm (same) gurgling or even blinking. The eyes aren't even open initially.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by LordKathen: It seems to me that the general christian view is becoming more and more subjective to the idea of evolution.

"Did Darwin destroy Christianity? Darwin said no. In 1879 atheist John Fordyce wrote Darwin asking whether evolution and God were compatible. Darwin replied that it was absurd to doubt whether anyone could ardently believe in God and be an evolutionist, and gave the examples of his friends, Asa Gray and Charles Kingsley"

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF6-00Roberts.html

[Yorick]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: Quote: Originally posted by Leonis: All I have to say on topic ( ), is that if evolution was true and worked the way it was claimed, we would see only smart, fit, lean, dark skinned (protection from sun/attract heat in the cold), whole, undiseased humans roaming the earth. Instead we get a world populated by a few billion people who are dumber than an ape...

No, you wouldn't.
Evolution revolves around life adapting to it's surroundings, like water molding to fit the shape of a container. It does not strictly involve becoming smarter, more resistant to disease or more muscular. It involves making the best use of resources available at the time and place, and passing on genes to the next generation. Big brains are expensive in terms of protein and fat, and in some instances it is better NOT to have such expensive organs in that they require ultra high maintenance. Humans by no means prosperred during the last Ice Age to the degree that mammoths and other such animals did. But some bands of homo sapiens were able to weather it out and survive, and thus continue their genetic lineage, and when global conditions became more favourable they were able to expand and exploit the Earth alot better. If the tiny groups of humans existing during the last Ice Age had died out, whether by accident, famine or predation, their genetic configuartion would have been lost forever, and the course of life history in recent millenia would have been ALOT different. But they didn't die, and here we are, with our computers and state religions and evolution textbooks. Remarkable stuff!

It all boils down to chance.[/QUOTE]Except that humanity is destroying the planet and could still wipe itself out. A notion that would totally disprove natural selection if it came to pass. But then who would be around to care?

I have to agree with Leonis. Why did not the humans best adapted to the earth (physically and mentaly) dominate the weaker, less adaptable ones? Every culture that lived in harmony with the planet - subsistence living mindful of the natural cycles - were wiped out by once that destroy the environment they live in.

Does anyone know what happens when Dwarfs have a child? What are the odds that the child is born without Dwarfism compared to being born with it?

What are the odds of a blind couple conceiving of a sighted child?

To my knowledge the human gene code attempts to correct itself from an abberation. It doesn't allow for advancement and natural selection by creating a subrace of Dwarves, webbed toed people (I have a friend who has this) etc. Correct me if I'm wrong on this guys.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

Except that humanity is destroying the planet and could still wipe itself out. A notion that would totally disprove natural selection if it came to pass. But then who would be around to care? I have to agree with Leonis. Why did not the humans best adapted to the earth (physically and mentaly) dominate the weaker, less adaptable ones? Every culture that lived in harmony with the planet - subsistence living mindful of the natural cycles - were wiped out by once that destroy the environment they live in.

Actualy , humanity wipeing itself out would prove natural selection. Natural selection weeds out the stupid as well as the weak and sick. Think of the fossilized remains found in tar pits. An obvious and stationary trap like that could only catch the developmentaly challenged. After all, molten, smokeing tar isnt the most inviteing thing in the world. Also, AFAIK the humans who are best adapted to the earth do dominate the weaker humans. The humans with the best technology have subjugated their less inteligent neighbors since the dawn of time. Look at how the first settelers defeated the Native Americans with fire arms even though at first they were vastly outnumbered. In modern times look at the industrialized nations in comparison to the non industrialized nations. The ones with the best technology dominate the market place and ,in essence , the world. To make it even smaller, compare Bill Gates to a homeless person. Bill has the brain power to get ahead in this world. You average homeless person doesnt. They wouldnt be in the situation they are in if they did. It seems to me that natural selection is still alive and well.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: Quote: Except that humanity is destroying the planet and could still wipe itself out. A notion that would totally disprove natural selection if it came to pass. But then who would be around to care? I have to agree with Leonis. Why did not the humans best adapted to the earth (physically and mentaly) dominate the weaker, less adaptable ones? Every culture that lived in harmony with the planet - subsistence living mindful of the natural cycles - were wiped out by once that destroy the environment they live in.

Actualy , humanity wipeing itself out would prove natural selection. Natural selection weeds out the stupid as well as the weak and sick. Think of the fossilized remains found in tar pits. An obvious and stationary trap like that could only catch the developmentaly challenged. After all, molten, smokeing tar isnt the most inviteing thing in the world. Also, AFAIK the humans who are best adapted to the earth do dominate the weaker humans. The humans with the best technology have subjugated their less inteligent neighbors since the dawn of time. Look at how the first settelers defeated the Native Americans with fire arms even though at first they were vastly outnumbered. In modern times look at the industrialized nations in comparison to the non industrialized nations. The ones with the best technology dominate the market place and ,in essence , the world. To make it even smaller, compare Bill Gates to a homeless person. Bill has the brain power to get ahead in this world. You average homeless person doesnt. They wouldnt be in the situation they are in if they did. It seems to me that natural selection is still alive and well.[/QUOTE]Oh come on... you don't believe in being in the right place at the right time?? Fortunate chance, or the benefit of being born into privelege? Serendipity?

A person born with more inventiveness, brains, and entrepeneurial skill could be languishing in India because of external circumstances, not how advanced they are as a human. If you can even say that one human is more advanced than the next!

This is what I was talking about earlier. Following an evolutionist mindset can open up justification for and acceptance of injustices. No point in helping out the weak or oppressed, because if they're meant to survive they will. En-masse or individually. Right?

Look at India, founded on the caste system where everyone has earned their lot in life owing to past misdeeds or heroics. The main people working for the oppressed, sick or needy are christian organisations like Mother Theresas. Groups outside the view of self perptuated reality.

[Chewbacca]

Something to note on creationism is there many different creation myths if one broadens the definition of creationism to include all cultures, religions, and ideologies of worship. An example:
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSIndex.html

Even athiests can have a creation story. One who theorizes a finite universe will of course theorize its beginning and hence forth we have an aethistic creation story. I believe it is called the "Big Bang"! In a way the theory of evolution is a creation story, a story of on-going creation.

Ultimately, the way I see it unless the universe is infinite, then it must of began... sometime... somehow.

That said I have no problem having evolved from apes or organic spew. It must to have been fun to be organic spew. Nothing to do all day but float around and self-replicate. Unaware that one day that very spew would be related to me. Ah evolution.