where did evolution go?

BaconWizard

Regular Member
Jan 8, 2014
934
37
UK
✟8,742.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Greens
I do see natural selection as an element of evolution, but I also see other forces at work that could cause changes in the DNA. As an example, the inner desire or need might cause the DNA structure of a particular group to change to satisfied the need or desire. I realize that's not "scientific" yet, but I've read accounts of that type of inner DNA caused change being looked at and studied. And because in my world we are much more than a physical being, intuitively, that makes a lot of sense to me.

.

Ah, yes... well it's not scientific, no. But it's a hypothesis and we're all free to have those unless something utterly disproves it, just as we are perfectly free to hypothesize that there's a god or gods.

Your idea doesn't sound all that unlikely to me. Epigenetics wasn't more than someone's idea till quite recently.
 
Upvote 0

dlamberth

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Oct 12, 2003
19,212
2,813
Oregon
✟723,375.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
US-Others
Your idea doesn't sound all that unlikely to me. Epigenetics wasn't more than someone's idea till quite recently.
When looking at this from a spiritual perspective while adding the kinds of pressures caused by Love and Compassion to person and thus to their DNA, (if that is in fact what it will do) do you think that would over a few generations (or less) evolve a more Loving and Compassionate Human Being? I do.


.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BaconWizard

Regular Member
Jan 8, 2014
934
37
UK
✟8,742.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Greens
When looking at this from a spiritual perspective while adding the kinds of pressures caused by Love and Compassion to person and thus to their DNA, (if that is in fact what it will do) do you think that would over a few generations (or less) evolve a more Loving and Compassionate Human Being? I do.

If that gave them any kind of advantage in life that was not outweighed by the disadvantages such a person might suffer, sure.

The thing is, I can think of other reasons why we might evolve that way just using the mechanisms we already know about. After all, we did evolve the amount of empathy we already have.
 
Upvote 0

elephunky

Previously known as dgirl1986
Nov 28, 2007
5,497
203
Perth, Western Australia
✟14,441.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Oh hey, another way science is completely wrong.

This rubbish about photons and stuff is just made up. There's no proof!

OBVIOUSLY lightbulbs suck dark.

I hope this is in jest lol
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,783
Pacific Northwest
✟728,095.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I recently made the mistake of visiting a Christian chat room, something I haven't done in well over a decade.

I was pretty cautious, to ensure I knew what sort of environment I was walking into. So when I did join in conversation I intentionally tried to keep comments that I thought might result in flaming to myself. It didn't work as well as I'd hoped.

The topic came up initially that the Jewish calendar was a lunar calendar. Someone commented that it was amazing that ancient people were able to study the patterns in the sky like they did. I joked that thousands of years ago without electricity and video games, astronomy was kind of like the main bronze age hobby.

I mentioned astronomy, and apparently all sorts of heck was let loose. First someone thought I was talking about astrology, I explained I said astronomy. Then I had to explain the difference between astronomy and astrology (something I thought was very basic knowledge). I used the 's' word. You know, "science".

So the conversation degenerated into something like this:

Person A: "Is astronomy actual facts or just human opinions"
Me: "Science deals with facts, astronomy as science deals with observations and the collection of data"
Person B: "It's just human OPINIONS not God's TRUTH"
Me: "No, science deals with facts. It deals with objective observations and addresses them through the scientific method"
Person B: "God's Word is TRUTH"

(Yes, "TRUTH" and "OPINIONS" were in all caps, that wasn't creative liberties on my part)

I realized at that point I really had nothing I could contribute that would have been in any way fruitful.

It boggles my mind that if one were to believe in a Creator God, as Christianity does, its right there in our Scriptures and in our Creeds, that God wouldn't imbue His creation with, well, truth. That what we actually observe in the universe is, in fact, a true observation. Theologically it's just insane to suggest otherwise.

It had been a very long time since I attempted entering a Christian chat room. Like I said it's been probably about a decade.

It was also a pretty good reminder that Christian Forums, for some of the craziness that does sometimes occur, is a rather sane place for discussion.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Jane_the_Bane

Gaia's godchild
Feb 11, 2004
19,359
3,426
✟168,333.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
UK-Greens
Here's a couple of things that even people who are familiar with the general idea behind the theory of evolution often get wrong:

1. Natural selection deals with populations, not individuals. Even the fastest gazelle in a herd can take a stumble and be caught by the hunting lions while a sickly, slow animal escapes the predators. And even the most well-adapted individual will leave no lasting effect on the species whatsoever if it happens to be infertile, or its offspring dies before passing on its genes.

2. The fitness referenced in the popular phrase "survival of the fittest" is not the Nietzschean quasi-fascist vision of ruthless brawn far too many people picture when they hear it. It means that the organisms that are best suited to a certain set of environmental conditions are the most likely to pass on their traits, thus producing a species that is better capable of living in them. What these traits are depends very much on any given situation, and there are as many possibilities as there are organisms - or even more so. Social species are a product of evolution, too, so it stands to reason that all the inherited instincts and emotive responses associated with such a productive co-existence are also the result of extensive natural selection: compassion, empathy, love.
Intuition would suggest that leaving your best friend to be eaten by a bear in order to secure your own escape would be the safest course of action, but on the level of the species (again, we're dealing with populations, not individuals), it actually DECREASES your chances of passing on your genes. It's basically the Monty Hall problem of evolutionary biology.

3. What we call a "species" is but a freeze-frame picture of life evolving. I cannot stress this enough, because so few people actually seem to grasp this fully. The illusion of stasis and immutability is just too strong, like looking at a tree and feeling that it must be as unchanging as a rock, because you cannot see any change happening in front of your eyes. Except that we *can* watch trees grow, whereas speciation tends to take considerably longer.
 
Upvote 0