Evolution II

[LordKathen]

I would like to quote myself, just to bring it over to Evolution 2.

Originally posted by LordKathen: I dont think you are looking at the picture big enough. We most certainly have become to smart. Cars take up room yes, but why did we make cars in the first place? Yes it is about resource management, but if we continue on the road we are on, all the resources we could manage would eventually run out also. Our intelagence has created a world where we use many times the amount of resources we can handle at the rate we are populating. We will wipe our selfs out. There is no way around it. Lets take a look at the picture really tiny. Viruses are out evolving our science and vaccines. They addapt to our envirement quicker than we can find a new weapon. Our immune systems are becoming weaker against sickness, becouse we are becoming to reliant on antibacterial products and such. That is only one problem of many we will face. There is so much more to this debate of evolution and science than I think any of us know. We are focusing to small on irrelevent issues. Evolution is in and around everything, from the ant you stepped on, to leaves that drop in fall, to an orchid that has a 16 inch tubular flower. You ask, "how does it get its pollun to another orchid?" A moth with a 16 inch nose. A fine example of co-evolution, by the way. There is book that my father has that I am going to read as soon as he is done. He is a Mental Health Pro, with a masters degree in science, and is agnostic. He recomends this book. I cant wait. It is by Carl Zimmer, is called "Evolution: The triumph of an idea" Amozon has it for sale. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00006B6SG/ref%3Dnosim/lksm subsite-sub-bk-asin-20/104-8544058-4927942

[wellard]

Originally posted by Moiraine: The "Evolution" thread is getting huge, so here is the sequel. [img]smile.gif[/img] Original initial post : --------------------- but I have a question. What is it that seems to be so emotionally disturbing to humankind in sharing ancestors with apes ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

First can I say that this has been the most interesting debate I have had the pleasure of reading in the short time I have been on IW. Articulate and thought provoking arguments. I began with a complete faith in Darwinism and a committed sceptic, however the arguments put by Yorick and Ceric and other have been strong and eye opening and certainly knocked the stuffing out of some of my long held theories. Well done everyone.

Secondly can I ask people to reflect on Moiraine's original question?

Why can the two opposing ideals not be joined? For example...

That God created man by the tiniest alteration to the genetic code of apes?
That god’s creationist period: D was just (JUST! [img]graemlins/crazyeyes.gif[/img] ) a manipulation of evolution, a nudge in the desired direction.

As Moiraine says what is so objectionable to this idea?
Why can't both ideas coexist *quotes MLK* why can't we just get along?

[ 02-25-2003, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: wellard ]

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by wellard: Quote: Originally posted by Moiraine: The "Evolution" thread is getting huge, so here is the sequel. [img]smile.gif[/img] Original initial post : --------------------- but I have a question. What is it that seems to be so emotionally disturbing to humankind in sharing ancestors with apes ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

First can I say that this has been the most interesting debate I have had the pleasure of reading in the short time I have been on IW. Articulate and thought provoking arguments. I began with a complete faith in Darwinism and a committed sceptic, however the arguments put by Yorick and Ceric and other have been strong and eye opening and certainly knocked the stuffing out of some of my long held theories. Well done everyone.

Secondly can I ask people to reflect on Moiraine's original question?

Why can the two opposing ideals not be joined? For example...

That God created man by the tiniest alteration to the genetic code of apes?
That god’s creationist period: D was just (JUST! [img]graemlins/crazyeyes.gif[/img] ) a manipulation of evolution, a nudge in the desired direction.

As Moiraine says what is so objectionable to this idea?
Why can't both ideas coexist *quotes MLK* why can't we just get along? [/QUOTE]Thanks Wellard ! [img]smile.gif[/img]

There was a wider span to my question - and that is why I pointedly did not mention religion in my question. [img]smile.gif[/img] Apperently, many humans who honestly believe themselves free of preconceptions - myself included - unconsciously find themselves reluctant to accept the three concepts that evolution seems to indicate so far : that evolution is not centered around the human line, that the current humans are not the end of evolution of our tree branch, and that evolution doesn't seem to have a purpose ... [img]smile.gif[/img]

This reflects in the way scientific sub-theories have been conducted - that scientists have been looking for a 'missing link' for so long, that they have only so recently begun to look at the human evolutionary subtree as a bush with many branches, ...

I mean, yes, these concept are easy to accept - by the mind. Emotionnally however ...

I think the tiny spark that prompted my posting this thread was something I read in the last book I bought : that according to what a statistical study of all the evolutionary tree of all species show us, we, along with all the ape subtree, are species in its way to extinction ... and I had to work on myself to accept this as a possibility.

[wellard]

quote Moiraine

"that evolution is not centered around the human line, that the current humans are not the end of evolution of our tree branch, and that evolution doesn't seem to have a purpose"

God help us if we are at the end of evolution *could not resist*

Evolution doesn't seem to have a purpose.. Not yet other than to evolve into something else.. Just because we cannot see light at the end of the tunnel does not mean that there is not a greater purpose for our (and other animals) evolution. A case for faith perhaps or hope at least?

"That the current humans are not the end of evolution of our tree branch"

A worrying argument that I recently read, put forth the argument that we are at the end of human evolution and due to advances in medicine and Humane bleeding heart syndrome we no longer exterminate those that are imperfect, allowing mentally challenged people to breed and allowing downs syndrome babies to live and breed ect. These totally disgusting imo nazi type arguments do seem to be spreading. Is this what you are getting at? (Please note I am NOT in any way accusing you of having these thoughts)

If anyone finds the above paragraph offensive then I will happily delete [img]smile.gif[/img]

[esquire]

Originally posted by Moiraine: I think the tiny spark that prompted my posting this thread was something I read in the last book I bought : that according to what a statistical study of all the evolutionary tree of all species show us, we, along with all the ape subtree, are species in its way to extinction ... and I had to work on myself to accept this as a possibility.

Ah, but we humans have the unique advantage of being sentient and self-aware. Yea its a possibility we will go extinct, but atleast we are aware of that possibility and can actively do something about it. We innovate our way out of trouble.

Of course a killer astroid could just as well hit the earth tommorow and it would be game-over

[wellard]

esquire quote
"Of course a killer astroid could just as well hit the earth tommorow and it would be game-over "

that is why todays teenagers have grown up playing computer / arcade games.

So that in twenty years when the next astoroid shower hits we will be prepered with millions of fully trained laser cannon shooters [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by wellard: A worrying argument that I recently read, put forth the argument that we are at the end of human evolution and due to advances in medicine and Humane bleeding heart syndrome we no longer exterminate those that are imperfect, allowing mentally challenged people to breed and allowing downs syndrome babies to live and breed ect. These totally disgusting imo nazi type arguments do seem to be spreading. Is this what you are getting at? (Please note I am NOT in any way accusing you of having these thoughts) If anyone finds the above paragraph offensive then I will happily delete [img]smile.gif[/img]

No, Wellard, I am not getting at anything - I wanted to open a discussion, to see new ideas and thoughts springing up. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[WillowIX]

WOW! This topic is still going strong I see. Read through the old thread. I don´t see why evolution and religious belief can´t walk hand in hand. God created man and implemented functions to enhance his development. Those who chose to believe there is no god may disagree that God created man but still acknowledge evolution. Man has evolved the latest 4,000 years although the signs may not be as obvious as rgowing a long neck or developing wings. Brain capacity has been increasing throughout time (we still only use about 10% of our maximum capacity or something thereabout). How? Well a simple point mutation in one protein, reelin just to name one, could result in a better axonial growth therby promoting brain activity. So I would have to say that evolution is still trying to change things to adapt humans to the new conditions on Earth.

In one of my posts in the old thread I mentioned that modern medicine negates evolution. Luckily no one reacted badly to that. Still, "weaker" humans do not die as they did when medicine was not about. Therefore "survival of the fittest" has lost some meaning in human development. BUT since humans have evolved and created a society we can´t go back and say "Sorry, you are on your own". Therefore it could be argued that humans have a stalemate against evolution. And it can get worse/better. In the near future we will be able to modify the genome of a fetus, thereby removing disease and perhaps augmenting the human body. Could it be that humans are developing its own evolution? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Edit: Wellard, your paragraph that Moriane quoted is a very interesting point. The ethical debate always follow a debate about evolution. In the human society all men have the right to life. Is this bad? Definitely not! Does it prevent Darwinism? Well yes it does. [img]smile.gif[/img] I, for one, am proud that we are able to help/cure so many people today.

Edit 2: Someone mentioned viruses in the old thread. I´m not so sure you can call that evolution since the mutations always continue, even when a preferred state has occurred. The same goes for some bacteria. Mutagenic drift occurs from a flawed transcription system that has evolved. The mutations of the surface proteins would more be like a sideeffect. HIV is a good example of a very mutagenic being. It has a very high mutation frequency in the surface protein (1/10,000) which literally means that there will be several different strains in the host. But if a strain should develop that proved ultimate to all others, it would not be sustained. This ultimate strain would mutate over and over again to produce less effective viruses. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-25-2003, 06:40 AM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

[Donut]

Originally posted by Yorick: As I said, I know first hand babies that have no fear of loud noises and no fear of heights - to their detriment. An innate fear of heights would have saved many infants from death in the past.

It's true that babies aren't born with a fear of heights but they do have a reflex reaction to the sensation of falling.

I once spent some time assisting in a baby clinic. The first check up was at 6 weeks where the Doctor showed the 'grasping' reflex. He held the child up high 'ptetnded' to allow it to fall. Both of the child's hands made a grasping movement as if it were trying to catch hold of something (a branch perhaps [img]smile.gif[/img] ).

[Moiraine]

Willow, don't forget that viruses evolve too. Look at AIDS. And if evolution gives us ways to respond to external aggressions, it also gives ways to the rest of the living species to respond to aggressions caused by us. We may well have a world full of only insects and microbs in a few centuries ...