Evolutions final outcome

[Loudmouth]

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

Your question does not make sense. You might as well ask a gravitationalist if we should be flying in airplanes or have satellites in geosynchronous orbit.

What we should or should not do has NOTHING to do with evolution. Those are ethical questions, not scientific questions. Science can only tell us what the results of our actions will be. Science does not tell us what actions we should or should not take.

What we SHOULD do is agree on what type of future we want for the human species, and then use science to make that future happen. Can this include direct genetic manipulation of the human genome to rid us of oncogenes and genetic disorders? Why not?

Evolution is not a set of rules. Evolution does not say what we should or should not do. Evolution is simply something that happens when certain conditions are met (e.g. imperfect replicators who compete for limited resources). You need to get past the idea that scientific theories are commandments. They aren't. They never have been. They are simply descriptions of how nature works.

 

[duordi]

One of the problems God had with people before the flood was that they modified life in the eco system to fit their needs which aparently was not acceptable to God.

Geneses 6
11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

Mankind had created giants of themselves.

Geneses 6
4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

I wondered if this would be considered immoral today.
We have the knowledge to make any animal 2 or three times large if we wish. I worked on a chinchilla farm and the animals were used to make coats. By selective breading they were able to increasae the animal hight and length about three times.

Duordi

 

[serge546]

One of the problems God had with people before the flood was that they modified life in the eco system to fit their needs which aparently was not acceptable to God.
Duordi

Well... Right now we modify life down to the genome level. If God really has a problem with this why has he not struck us down?

This is why I don't believe the bible. God, supposedly, struck down entire cities and civilizations for things which our society does on a much larger scale.

Either he stopped caring or the bible is allegorical when it comes to catastrophes which are credited to God.

 

[Loudmouth]

One of the problems God had with people before the flood was that they modified life in the eco system to fit their needs which aparently was not acceptable to God.

Every single species does this. Wolves modify elk herds when they hunt them. Beavers create dams and change the ecosystem. Ants breed strains of fungus to use in their leaf farms. Cheat grass contains highly flammable chemicals that burn hot in fires to kill off competitors in desert environments. Every species has an impact in the ecosystem where it resides. Humans are no different.

 

[DaneaFL]

The reason why the ancient jews had such a fear and aversion to "giants" is because compared to them, everyone in the neighboring lands looked like giants since anthropology has discovered that the jews were.quite short compared to other ethnic groups during that time.

Their demonizing of tall people is just yet another excuse to give the jews a reason to go into someone elses land and kill all of them... Something they are really fond of doing.

 

[Naraoia]

2. Life could improve until it is reaches perfection.

What do you mean by 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.

This is a very common but completely wrong interpretation of what evolution says. Things like fitness, improvement, adaptation are always dependent on the context. You can't be "the fittest" in all environments. Add to that the fact that the environment itself evolves (case in point, the pathogens we've talked about), and it becomes pretty nonsensical to talk about "improvement" in an absolute sense.

(This notion that evolution is progress in an absolute sense is hard to shake off even when you understand evolution on a conscious level. I sometimes struggle with it despite a degree in evolutionary biology and a nearly lifelong interest in evolution.)

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

Short answer: no

 

[Gracchus]

Their demonizing of tall people is just yet another excuse to give the jews a reason to go into someone elses land and kill all of them... Something they are really fond of doing.

Holy cow! That would mean Jews are... (gasp!) ... HUMAN!

 

[duordi]

Do not let your opinion be sole based on your perception of God but check it with reality.

"According to the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament Goliath was six cubits and a span tall, 3.2 metres (9 feet, 6 inches), if measured by the 18 inch cubit, and 3.5 metres (just over 11 feet), if the 21 inch cubit is used.

Guinness book of world records

The tallest man living is Sultan Kösen (Turkey, b.10 December 1982) who measured 251 cm (8 ft 3 in) in Ankara, Turkey, on 08 February 2011."

Apparently there is a gland disorder which causes excessive growth. Oddly it does not necessarily cause one to be feeble. Andre the giant was a wrestler and does not look skinny or weak as one might expect from a person so tall. They typically have short lives due to the strain of so much body weight for the heart to service. this would prevent them from kicking someones but in a battle.

Duordi

 

[SkyWriting]

Do not let your opinion be sole based on your perception of God but check it with reality.
Guinness book of world records
Apparently there is a gland disorder which causes excessive growth. Oddly it does not necessarily cause one to be feeble. Andre the giant was a wrestler and does not look skinny or weak as one might expect from a person so tall. They typically have short lives due to the strain of so much body weight for the heart to service. this would prevent them from kicking someones but in a battle. Duordi

Heart conditions may limit a person's ability to kick butt in the final years. When young there may not be any symptoms. But they sometimes do fail dramatically in the end.

 

[duordi]

Originally Posted by duordi: 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?

So you don't like stupid people, you think you are smart and you are depressed about it?

Originally Posted by duordi:Which do you suppose Plato considered himself?

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

Based on your answer above I would guess you thought Plato was considering himself as wise and others as fools.

Plato was a thinking man and may have realized how limited his knowledge was compared to what was available to be known. I doubt Plato was comparing himself to others, it would make him out to be arrogant.

Only a fool thinks they are not one, don't you agree?

Originally Posted by duordi: 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."

Oh no, I would never stoop to switch peoples names and vegetables. : )

Originally Posted by duordi: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.

That is because you insist that we accept your base assumptions.
Your base assumptions are your opinions and you can not expect everyone to accept your opinions as fact.

If my base assumptions are followed then science supports me.

40% of all Americans believe in creationism. So please stop your victim complex.

For someone who is depressed you sure do a good job at cheering others up, thanks.

Duordi

 

[duordi]

The last I checked prejudice could be based on race, creed, national origin or sexual orientation.
Creed is religion or belief.
One of the principal pillars of our society is freedom of religion.

I would hope you agree with me on this.

I noticed you also left out "national origin" which protects foreigners.
was this an oversight?

Duordi

 

[duordi]

Originally Posted by duordi

2. Life could improve until it is reaches perfection.
​

What do you mean by 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.
​

This is a very common but completely wrong interpretation of what evolution says. Things like fitness, improvement, adaptation are always dependent on the context. You can't be "the fittest" in all environments. Add to that the fact that the environment itself evolves (case in point, the pathogens we've talked about), and it becomes pretty nonsensical to talk about "improvement" in an absolute sense.

(This notion that evolution is progress in an absolute sense is hard to shake off even when you understand evolution on a conscious level. I sometimes struggle with it despite a degree in evolutionary biology and a nearly lifelong interest in evolution.)

For any set of criteria there must be a perfect solution which can not be exceeded. A condition which would occur if all genetic changes made a life form better able to survive. If you reach this condition any change will cause a less then perfect state. The evolutionary theory is based on an inefficient driving force that is to say all genetic changes are not positive. Therefore it will not be sufficient to reach the best that is possible because some genetic modification are detrimental. There must be a condition in which the forces driving life in each direction are in equilibrium. The system equilibrium may change with constraints of the environment and it may be unstable but it must exist.

Originally Posted by duordi 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

​

Short answer: no

I would agree but I must admit I am surprised at your answer.

I would have thought that you would have considered intelligence as an evolutionary ability and that all abilities should be used in our survival and improvement.

I am very curious as to why you took this position?

Duordi

 

[duordi]

Apparently when they are young there are no real side affects.
They could kick some but after all.

I wonder how large someone could get before they're heart could not stand the strain of a battle even when they are young?

Duordi

 

[duordi]

Originally Posted by duordi

One of the problems God had with people before the flood was that they modified life in the eco system to fit their needs which aparently was not acceptable to God.
​

Every single species does this. Wolves modify elk herds when they hunt them. Beavers create dams and change the ecosystem. Ants breed strains of fungus to use in their leaf farms. Cheat grass contains highly flammable chemicals that burn hot in fires to kill off competitors in desert environments. Every species has an impact in the ecosystem where it resides. Humans are no different. __________________

God allowed killing for food after the flood.

Gen 9
2 And the fear of you and the dread and terror of you shall be upon every beast of the land, every bird of the air, all that creeps upon the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are delivered into your hand.
3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green vegetables and plants, I give you everything.


So it is acceptable to eat chocolate ants after all.


Duordi

 

[Naraoia]

For any set of criteria there must be a perfect solution which can not be exceeded.

I'm not sure expecting "a" perfect solution rather than many equally good solutions is warranted, but I see what you mean.

A condition which would occur if all genetic changes made a life form better able to survive. If you reach this condition any change will cause a less then perfect state. The evolutionary theory is based on an inefficient driving force that is to say all genetic changes are not positive. Therefore it will not be sufficient to reach the best that is possible because some genetic modification are detrimental. There must be a condition in which the forces driving life in each direction are in equilibrium. The system equilibrium may change with constraints of the environment

and it may be unstable but it must exist.

Thanks for clarifying, that makes much more sense.

I would agree but I must admit I am surprised at your answer.

I would have thought that you would have considered intelligence as an evolutionary ability and that all abilities should be used in our survival and improvement.

I am very curious as to why you took this position?

Basically, because the position you described is not an "evolutionist" position. Evolutionary theory is a description. It tells you how certain parts of the world work, not how you should do things.

If you didn't bring evolution into it and simply asked me whether I thought that we should use our intelligence to improve ourselves, my answer would be a conditional yes. I think trying to "improve the species" as in eugenics is wrong, but I'm fine with things like gene therapy, which can improve the lives of people unfortunate enough to be born with disabling mutations. I hope that clarifies things

 

[DaneaFL]

Basically, because the position you described is not an "evolutionist" position. Evolutionary theory is a description. It tells you how certain parts of the world work, not how you should do things.

aww come on, we all know that yall base ur whole life on that evulooshunism hogwash! *say with twangy country accent for full effect*