Evolutions final outcome

[duordi]

In Geneses 3 it indicates that variation of the species is a curse which will cause death.

Geneses 3:
17 And to Adam He said, Because you have listened and given heed to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it, the ground is under a curse because of you; in sorrow and toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life.
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth for you, and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you shall return.

Variation of plant life with thorns and thistles is defined as a harmful event. We know this statement is just one aspect of a biosphere in which all forms of life are actively attacking one another from micro organisms to the largest life forms on Earth.

Commonly evolutionist regard variation of the species as a positive event when this is not necessarily the case.

Consider that disease (virus and bacterial) reproduce and adapt much faster then humans, which means a competition defined strictly by “survival of the fittest” should cause bacteria to win.

Suppose bacteria or a virus is more "fit for survival", and humans are doomed to be consumed by them.

From an evolutionist perspective this may mean that life in the universe will no longer be self aware, degrading to the mere ability of reproduction.

I refer to universal life because we have no “scientific” proof life exists anywhere else but Earth, so for those that do not accept that God or angles exist we could possibly be the only life in the universe.

Does the possibility of the extinction of the human race and life that is self aware bother you or would you see it as an improvement because bacteria has proven itself more fit to survive?

Lets take this a step further.

Suppose the most fit life form to survive is a virus which does not expend any of its own effort or produce any positive action but just eliminates other life forms to reproduce itself. If a virus is the "best survivor" all life would then be reduced to a virus chromosome string which can no longer reproduce having destroyed all host life forms composed of cells.

Would you consider humans and celled life, inferior life forms which must be eliminated in a progression to the most "survivable" life form which is an inert chromosome containing information to reproduce without a mechanism to do so?

Duordi.

 

[The Engineer]

Commonly evolutionist regard variation of the species as a positive event when this is not necessarily the case.

Actually, no evolutionist I know ever explicitly called variation of species a positive event. There is this tendency among evolutionists to regard evolution itself as something positive, though, but I don't share this view.

Consider that disease (virus and bacterial) reproduce and adapt much faster then humans, which means a competition defined strictly by “survival of the fittest” should cause bacteria to win.

This might actually be the case. Making all bacteria go extinct is pretty much impossible.

I wouldn't equate this with winning, however. Evolution has no purpose and no goal. It doesn't care who's around when all other life goes extinct.

Suppose bacteria or a virus is more "fit for survival", and humans are doomed to be consumed by them.

Just because bacteria and viruses are fitter than humans doesn't mean they will kill them. In fact, that would be bad for them. Smallpox has been eradicated, Ebola is mostly limited to developing countries, mainly because those diseases kill too fast and are too blatant. The common cold is much more successful.

From an evolutionist perspective this may mean that life in the universe will no longer be self aware, degrading to the mere ability of reproduction.

That's exactly what Peter Watts said in Blindsight, too. Many humans think that evolution will necessarily advance intelligence and social abilities, but it will only do so if those things are beneficial for survival.

I refer to universal life because we have no “scientific” proof life exists anywhere else but Earth, so for those that do not accept that God or angles exist we could possibly be the only life in the universe.

True.

Does the possibility of the extinction of the human race and life that is self aware bother you or would you see it as an improvement because bacteria has proven itself more fit to survive?

I initially regarded this possibility as a bit unsettling, but now, I couldn't care less. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a moral compass, and people should stop using it like one.

Lets take this a step further.

Suppose the most fit life form to survive is a virus which does not expend any of its own effort or produce any positive action but just eliminates other life forms to reproduce itself. If a virus is the "best survivor" all life would then be reduced to a virus chromosome string which can no longer reproduce having destroyed all host life forms composed of cells.

Actually, viruses are not even commonly regarded as live anymore, but I know where you are going.

Would you consider humans and celled life, inferior life forms which must be eliminated in a progression to the most "survivable" life form which is an inert chromosome containing information to reproduce without a mechanism to do so?

Humans are only inferior to bacteria when it comes to survival. That doesn't mean we are intrinsically inferior, or that our value (however one should calculate such a thing for a living being) is lower.

You should read Blindsight. It deals with your thesis that evolution doesn't necessarily have to progress species in a direction that we regard as positive. You can also legally download it for free.

 

[Jamin4422]

Suppose bacteria or a virus is more "fit for survival", and humans are doomed to be consumed by them.

We are consumed by them when we die. That is their job, to break down one organism so that another organism can use that energy. Even the mitochondria in a cell is like a bacteria that breaks the food down into energy for our body.

 

[Loudmouth]

Variation of plant life with thorns and thistles is defined as a harmful event.

Being that the Bible is very anthropocentric this isn't surprising. For the plant, the development of thorns and thistles allowed for the propogation of the species.

Commonly evolutionist regard variation of the species as a positive event when this is not necessarily the case.

I don't think so. The production of variation is considered to be just that, the production of variation. When a beneficial variation is selected for it is often called positive selection with reference to the fitness of the species. That is, selection increases fitness.

Consider that disease (virus and bacterial) reproduce and adapt much faster then humans, which means a competition defined strictly by “survival of the fittest” should cause bacteria to win.

Our immune system also adapts quickly. We have millions of different antibodies waiting for a challenge.

Suppose bacteria or a virus is more "fit for survival", and humans are doomed to be consumed by them.

From an evolutionist perspective this may mean that life in the universe will no longer be self aware, degrading to the mere ability of reproduction.

That would be a realistic perspective. Accepting the facts is just accepting the facts.

Does the possibility of the extinction of the human race and life that is self aware bother you or would you see it as an improvement because bacteria has proven itself more fit to survive?

Of course I want our species to continue. You seem to be making a very significant error that Hume called the Is/Ought problem. There are two different things. There are the the way things are (the Is) and the way we want things to be (the Ought). One is not derived from the other. They are separate things, different ideas.

Is–ought problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is also tied closely to the Naturalistic fallacy:

"It can be used to refer to the claim that what is natural is inherently good or right, and that what is unnatural is bad or wrong . . ."
Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Natural does not equal good. Natural is just natural. Good and bad are judged on different grounds and different ideas.

Suppose the most fit life form to survive is a virus . . .

There is no such thing as a most fit life form since no life form can be completely adapted to every possible niche. A virus is an especially poor example since it can not even reproduce on its own.

 

[Naraoia]

Variation of plant life with thorns and thistles is defined as a harmful event. We know this statement is just one aspect of a biosphere in which all forms of life are actively attacking one another from micro organisms to the largest life forms on Earth.

Except those that get along just fine or even help one another out.

Consider that disease (virus and bacterial) reproduce and adapt much faster then humans, which means a competition defined strictly by “survival of the fittest” should cause bacteria to win.

Our immune systems evolve a lot faster than we do. And also, a pathogen that wipes out its hosts is a soon-to-be-extinct pathogen. Not a recipe for long-term evolutionary success. (Just how deadly a pathogen should be to maximise its fitness is a fascinating subject. It's a lot more complicated than "breed like crazy even if it kills your host".)

Does the possibility of the extinction of the human race and life that is self aware bother you or would you see it as an improvement because bacteria has proven itself more fit to survive?

Neither. I don't attach absolute values to things. Humans might consider self-awareness a good thing (when it's not driving them crazy), but in the grand scheme of things, it's neither good nor bad. It just is.

Suppose the most fit life form to survive is a virus which does not expend any of its own effort or produce any positive action but just eliminates other life forms to reproduce itself. If a virus is the "best survivor" all life would then be reduced to a virus chromosome string which can no longer reproduce having destroyed all host life forms composed of cells.

By the definition of fitness, it's become rather... unfit at that point.

Actually, no evolutionist I know ever explicitly called variation of species a positive event. There is this tendency among evolutionists to regard evolution itself as something positive, though, but I don't share this view.

Me neither. It just happens. Okay, it fascinates me, and I wouldn't exist without it, but that doesn't make it objectively good.

Emotional reactions vs. rational value judgements, you know.

This might actually be the case. Making all bacteria go extinct is pretty much impossible.

Maybe in five billion years...

 

[duordi]

My hat is off to all of you.
Your perspectives are very logical.
As with all of you I do not prefer human extinct but one
must remain in reality after all.

I would see three possible conditions for variation of the species.

1. Life could degrade until it is lifeless.
2. Life could improve until it is reaches perfection.
3. Life could reach some sort of equilibrium.

Let us suppose the third option is true.
That would mean we will not improve past this point or reduce back to a lifeless form just fluctuate in this condition.

It would also mean survival of the fittest has attained its maximum condition and intelligence must be used to advance us.

Would the evolutionist position be that an active role must be played
by mankind with intelligent design instead of depending on random chance
for further development?

Duordi

 

[serge546]

We are consumed by them when we die. That is their job, to break down one organism so that another organism can use that energy. Even the mitochondria in a cell is like a bacteria that breaks the food down into energy for our body.

Close. Mitochondria (plural, mitochondrion singular) are bacteria. They are endosymbionts which came from the purple non-sulfur bacteria. Rickettsias. which are also obligate parasites, appear to be the closest living relative.

And no, they don't break down food themselves. They house the electron transport chain which eventually causes a proton motive force in order to synthesize ATP.

 

[duordi]

Maybe in five billion years...

Or one good sized meteor, which ever comes first.

 

[duordi]

Is it possible to live without any organism that is not part of us given we have all nonliving components we need to sustain life?


Duordi

 

[duordi]

It would seem your perspective on life is depressing.

I like your quote.“Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.”

Which do you suppose Plato considered himself?

Duordi

 

[serge546]

Is it possible to live without any organism that is not part of us given we have all nonliving components we need to sustain life?


Duordi

Not quite sure I understood the question. Are you asking if it is possible to live without any other organism? No, without mitochondria we we wouldn't even be here, having this discussion. This can be shown by the effects of cyanide, which blocks the electron transport chain, preventing ATP from being made, which kills you very, very quickly.

Ignoring mitochondria, without symbiotic bacteria in our gut (such as Escherichia, Bacteriodes, Bifidobacterium, etc.) we would not digest food very well and would be extremely susceptible to food poisoning. The lack of a well developed intestinal flora is the main reason you should not feed honey to infants. Honey contains spores of Clostridium botulinum, which causes botulism. Well developed intestinal flora helps prevent their harmful side effects and colonization of the bacteria.

Short answer: No, we cannot live without other organisms.

 

[Jamin4422]

Close. Mitochondria (plural, mitochondrion singular) are bacteria.

Ok, that is fine, but I was talking about population genetics. That means the Mitochondria is NOT recombined. It's passed from mother to daughter for generation after generation unchanged. Other then a mutation that can be used as a marker ever now and then.
Someday I will look into what your talking about though. I am just busy with other other things right now. It looks like they give you a lot of the tiny little details but you do not spend a lot of time looking at the big picture. But the time you get to the ecosystems it is the last chapter in the book and you seem to skip over it pretty quick. I wish they would do biology the other direction. Go from big to small, rather then small to big.

 

[serge546]

Not sure why you are getting all wound up and defensive, I was agreeing with your point but clarifying it.

Seems creationists can't take a little constructive criticism... when I corrected USincognito on a mistake he took it like a champ and even thanked me.

You need to relax, Jam.

 

[duordi]

Not quite sure I understood the question. Are you asking if it is possible to live without any other organism? No, without mitochondria we we wouldn't even be here, having this discussion. This can be shown by the effects of cyanide, which blocks the electron transport chain, preventing ATP from being made, which kills you very, very quickly.

I think this answered my question.

Ignoring mitochondria, without symbiotic bacteria in our gut (such as Escherichia, Bacteriodes, Bifidobacterium, etc.) we would not digest food very well and would be extremely susceptible to food poisoning. The lack of a well developed intestinal flora is the main reason you should not feed honey to infants. Honey contains spores of Clostridium botulinum, which causes botulism. Well developed intestinal flora helps prevent their harmful side effects and colonization of the bacteria.

This part is not a surprise for me because my opinion is that man kinds original diet consisted of fruit and that there were no destructive single celled animals in the original biosphere meaning Adam had no need for diet protection or the ability to eat meat.

The question that remained for me was did God create man to be able to be independent of other life? Could life start with an egg and sperm and develop physically without disease or must we have parasites to survive?

It would be interesting to know exactly what we would have to send in a space ship with a sperm and an egg to allow a human to survive physically.

Duordi

 

[Jamin4422]

Not sure why you are getting all wound up and defensive, I was agreeing with your point but clarifying it.

I am not getting defensive. I appreciate you explaining that to me. I do not know why you all think I am here. But a big part of why I am here is because I study this stuff on my own and it is nice to have people to talk to about it.

 

[duordi]

Woe, my prejudice meter just went off the scale.

Seems creationists can't take a little constructive criticism... when I corrected USincognito on a mistake he took it like a champ and even thanked me.

Do you realize how bad it would sound if you put a racial or sexual designation in the place of "creationist"?

Here let me show you.

Seems (Black people) can't take a little constructive criticism... when I corrected (a white person) on a mistake he took it like a champ and even thanked me.

The other thing that prejudiced does is judge an entire group for a single persons action.

Sorry to come down on you so hard and I know you did not intend insult but creationist are one of the few groups which are socially acceptable to degrade in our society and it is important to stop it before it becomes acceptable to be directed toward others also.

Duordi

 

[Jamin4422]

This part is not a surprise for me because my opinion is that man kinds original diet consisted of fruit and that there were no destructive single celled animals in the original biosphere meaning Adam had no need for diet protection or the ability to eat meat.

Are you reading Hannah Hurnard's books. Because you have hit on TWO of her big themes. The metaphysical beginning of thorns and thistles and the idea that Adam was NOT carnivorous. Usually they try to use that sort of thinking in a positive way. Like "Think and grow rich" or the "Science of getting rich" or the law of attraction. I think you got to be real careful with thinking your way to riches. IT can work, to some degree, but it can also make you a little crazy as Hurnard was having problems toward the end of her life.

I am still waiting on the evolutionists to tell me WHY carnivorous animals evolved. After all the Bible does talk about a time when the lion will lay down with the lamb and eat plants like the Ox. Even the Bible says stubble and that presents even more of a problem to deal with.

Anyways, there is no doubt that plants have ways to defend their area from other plants. Marigolds for example are the clear winner. Just about no other flower can move in on them and crowd them out. They say it is because they release some sort of chemical into the ground that keeps the weeds from growing and getting their food supply.

Also the chemicals we use right now to deal with those weeds are causing a BIG problem for our Ecosystems. They are killing off more then just the weeds. Along with the fact that people way over use them.

 

[Jamin4422]

The question that remained for me was did God create man to be able to be independent of other life?

Clearly Adam was to be a part of Eden as a Biodiversity Ecosystem. Darwin goes a long way to explain that to us. But they are so hung up on the details that they do not see the big picture. A Biosphere is a self contained Ecosystem. That is why Noah was to save the essential animals and plants from Eden. God did not want that Ecosystem to be destroyed. There is a popular theme in the Bible where God will use a remnant or 10% to repopulate the Earth.

 

[The Engineer]

It would seem your perspective on life is depressing.

Why? Because I don't like stupid people?Or because I don't consider myself stupid?

Which do you suppose Plato considered himself?

Frankly, I don't really care. I just liked his quote.

Do you realize how bad it would sound if you put a racial or sexual designation in the place of "creationist"?

Sure, but isn't that true of pretty much every sentence?

"I don't like onions. They taste bad and make me cry."
"I don't like black persons. They taste bad and make me cry."

The other thing that prejudiced does is judge an entire group for a single persons action.

Actually, we judge creationists for what they all do, mainly ignoring science and logic. If they didn't do this, their worldview wouldn't work.

Sorry to come down on you so hard and I know you did not intend insult but creationist are one of the few groups which are socially acceptable to degrade in our society and it is important to stop it before it becomes acceptable to be directed toward others also.

40% of all Americans believe in creationism. So please stop your victim complex.
40 Percent Of Americans Still Believe In Creationism

 

[Loudmouth]

Woe, my prejudice meter just went off the scale.

Then it needs to be recalibrated.

Do you realize how bad it would sound if you put a racial or sexual designation in the place of "creationist"?

Yes, that would be putting words into other people's mouths. That would be bad. You shouldn't do it.

"Creationist" is not a group based on sex or race. "Creationist" is a group based on a philosophy, and it is the philosophy and its result in its followers that we are criticizing.

According to your own logic, if you criticized a racist you would be prejudiced.