Evolution II

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by 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 ...

Did you read my last edit? I don´t know if I put that in there too late. I am uncertain if I should respond again. LOL! [img]smile.gif[/img] Give me a hint. [img]smile.gif[/img]

To clarify my above post I should say that it is the Reverse transcribase that has evolved through time, not all the different strains (if we only talk about HIV-1). Otherwise one could say that HIV-1 and HIV-2 shared a common ancestor and evolved differently. I am only talking about one specific strain. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-25-2003, 06:46 AM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by WillowIX: Did you read my last edit? I don´t know if I put that in there too late. I am uncertain if I should respond again. LOL! [img]smile.gif[/img] Give me a hint. [img]smile.gif[/img]

No I hadn't - but then English is not my native language, I take some time in posting. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Moiraine: No I hadn't - but then English is not my native language, I take some time in posting. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I noticed that you had posted at 6.41 and I edited at 6.40. I wouldn´t have had the time to post a response in that time either. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Anyway I tried to clarify my 1st post in this thread by editing the 2nd. That obviously didn´t work. I don´t see an edit in there.. So here it comes again (I´m sorry if this get double posted):

To clarify my above post I should say that it is the Reverse transcribase that has evolved through time, not all the different strains (if we only talk about HIV-1). And the most popular belief today about viruse development is that viruses originate from human/animal DNA. We have got a lot of junk in there. Otherwise one could say that HIV-1 and HIV-2 shared a common ancestor and evolved differently. I am only talking about one specific strain. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Edit: Aarrgh!! And now the edit is showing!

[ 02-25-2003, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

[Leonis]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Wow ! So many ideas ! This thread must be the most successful one I ever posted on Ironworks ! 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...

Lion man, two things you lay aside : first, we are not the finality of the human line, merely a step on the huge ladder, and second, viruses evolve too [img]smile.gif[/img]

EDIT : One could retort to you that if God was true and worked the way it was claimed, we would see only wise humans living in peace and harmony.

If you admit that it takes a lot of time for the message of God to fully sink in our thick human brains, why can't you accept the long time it takes for a significant change in a specie to occur ? [/QUOTE]For the record: Evolution doesn't conflict with my religion, just with my sensibility.

Moiraine, great thread! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]
1) Yes, but if evolutionary timelines are correct, I would think that humans should have evolved further, and our predecessors should not be around.

2) Christianity teaches about something called free will - the opportunity to be stupid [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[The Hierophant]

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)

simply put, evolution is not about fitness, it is about adaptability. Opportunism, making use of the resources you have. Fitting the mold of your world. There is absolutely no such thing as 'perfection', thus no human (or any other lifeform) is capable of being 'imperfect' either. Things simply are what they are. 'Bleeding Heart' is merely a hyper-protective impulse, which is fine. More people surviving means that there will be even more variety in the gene pool, excellent! Of course it means there are fewer resources to go around, but that problem gets 'sorted out' whenever a prolonged drought hits [img]smile.gif[/img] If left to their own devices then, 'mentally challenged' humans (who are still MUCH more 'intelligent' than most other lifeforms on the planet) might indeed have a hard time surviving, then again, maybe not. Where the line of reasoning that they are 'weak' and should not be allowed to breed comes in is primarily centred on laziness and self-centredness, being unwilling to help out as it were. Which is fine too, you live your life by your own choices.

Bottom line: there is no such thing as weakness.

Evolution favours those that happen to fit into their surroundings, not those who think they are stronger or fitter. A person with an IQ of 80 could have a resistance to a disease that wipes out 80% of the population. A high IQ or huge muscles cannot necessarily save you from disease. If all people die except for the 80-IQ person, then the 80-IQ person shall be the only one left to pass on their genes and shall become the 'norm' of the species as it were. Who knows how many times a species has been battered into shape by mass eradication (cheetahs for one seem to have had their genes 'bottlenecked' on quite a few occasions)?
Who knows...

[Indemaijinj]

There is one slight aspect of evolution and the whole "the world is billions old" thing:

It is not as much the past that is a problem as the future. See, the world is billions of years old and it will probably exist for billions of years into the future, but humanity sure WONT! We will just be another (though interesting) passage of natural history. Humanity risks insignificance under this prospect.

Within the Jewish/Muslim/Christian world view where the world is only a couple of thousands of years old and will only last a pair of thousands into the future humanity (or humanity's relation to God) will be the turning point of history. We were there when it started and we will be the ones who will be closing down the party. It's not about geocentrism at all, but "homocentrism".

[The Hierophant]

Indemaijinj: I agree wholeheartedly with you on this one. From the notion that humans really arn't all that significant in the grander scheme of things comes despair. It is the idea that your life really doesn't count for a great deal when all is said and done that most people are simply unable to cope with. There is a need to be needed. Makes perfect sense really, but ultimately I believe that evolutionary theory is the ultimate dogma of humility: the calm acceptance of the smallness of our lives. Not resenting, not bemoaning, not despairing, but understanding that we really are just extras in the great ensemble-cast theatrical extravaganza of the universe [img]smile.gif[/img] It's the science of peace my friend.

[Yorick]

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.

But all this is proof that humans are not "too clever for our own good" Kathen

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Leonis: Quote: Originally posted by Moiraine: Wow ! So many ideas ! This thread must be the most successful one I ever posted on Ironworks ! 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...

Lion man, two things you lay aside : first, we are not the finality of the human line, merely a step on the huge ladder, and second, viruses evolve too [img]smile.gif[/img]

EDIT : One could retort to you that if God was true and worked the way it was claimed, we would see only wise humans living in peace and harmony.

If you admit that it takes a lot of time for the message of God to fully sink in our thick human brains, why can't you accept the long time it takes for a significant change in a specie to occur ? [/QUOTE]For the record: Evolution doesn't conflict with my religion, just with my sensibility.

Moiraine, great thread! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]
1) Yes, but if evolutionary timelines are correct, I would think that humans should have evolved further, and our predecessors should not be around.

2) Christianity teaches about something called free will - the opportunity to be stupid [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]I'm the same Leonis. As has been made perfectly clear by posters here, by Darwin, by so many people, THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND EVOLUTION.

I've rejected evolution purely and simply because it makes no sense to me. I do not have the faith to accept it's premises and have not seen any evidence that is yet to convince me otherwise.

BECAUSE I am a Christian, there is an alternative scientific theory I can go with by default, and that is creationism (Creation Science). Unlike the atheist who HAS to believe in evolution, or hold to no scientificly accepted theory, I have a choice as to which theory I accept.

But this is a CHOICE for me that does not conflict with my CHOICE to love God.

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Yorick: Unlike the atheist who HAS to believe in evolution, or hold to no scientificly accepted theory, I have a choice as to which theory I accept. But this is a CHOICE for me that does not conflict with my CHOICE to love God.

Isn't 'believing in evolution or hold to no theory' a choice ?

Besides, an atheist can also propose a new theory. [img]smile.gif[/img]