If man is evolving, why is there still war?

[AV1611VET]

Sir, the majority of alligators will eat others of their species. Can you say the same of humans? Heck, such a thing is so uncommon in our species that you remember the full name of a person that fits that.

So?

Whether it's rare or common, what's the difference?

Does evolution say we're not allowed to do anything rare?

If we can have vestigial organs, can't we have vestigial actions?

 

[PsychoSarah]

So?

Whether it's rare or common, what's the difference?

Does evolution say we're not allowed to do anything rare?

If we can have vestigial organs, can't we have vestigial actions?

Sir, vestigial cannot be used that way.

Of course it matters, why wouldn't it matter how frequent certain behaviors are observed on the topic of war, a behavior?

 

[AV1611VET]

Sir, vestigial cannot be used that way.

Then how about "dormant" or "recessive"?

Or are you just acting like you don't understand what I'm saying?

Of course it matters, why wouldn't it matter how frequent certain behaviors are observed on the topic of war, a behavior?

According to Thomas Malthus, we go to war as a means of stabilizing the population against the food supply.

IOW, war is a good thing.

 

[SkyWriting]

Evolution doesn't guarantee survival, folks. Something like 95% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct.

If you make up a term like "Species" then how you define it will
create the hilarious "facts" you describe.

 

[SkyWriting]

They do claim that mutations are beneficial, no? They do claim species evolve and get better..no? There is more war today than in Adam's day. Funny, that.

Adam's kids had a fight. That was a sizable percentage of the population.
God had some words for Adam and booted him from the garden.
Likely Adam and Eve had some lively bedtime discussions.

 

[Chesterton]

They do claim that mutations are beneficial, no? They do claim species evolve and get better..no? There is more war today than in Adam's day. Funny, that.

If I may paraphrase, I think what the OP is trying to say is: War. Huh, yeah. What is it good for? Absolutely nuthin'. Say it again, ya'll.
Lookout. Good God. Yeah, listen to me. War.

 

[dad]

Adam's kids had a fight. That was a sizable percentage of the population.

Guess we don't really know that. There may have been hundreds of girls around, they just were not mentioned.

God had some words for Adam and booted him from the garden.
Likely Adam and Eve had some lively bedtime discussions.

Not as lively as before they sinned I wager.

 

[dad]

If I may paraphrase, I think what the OP is trying to say is: War. Huh, yeah. What is it good for? Absolutely nuthin'. Say it again, ya'll.
Lookout. Good God. Yeah, listen to me. War.

John told the soldier to go and do violence to no man. Imagine if all soldiers obeyed!

 

[dad]

Violence is becoming less common overall in our species,..

??? News to me.

 

[dad]

Suicide is specifically killing oneself; if you are directly killing someone else, it isn't suicide. Also, 42 million doesn't even make a mark on our population size; our population is still growing.

Not a mark? That would be approx the population of the US every 8 or 9 years or some such.

So, not only did god have to punish every human for the "crimes" of 2 people, but also every species unrelated to the incident? And you don't have a problem with that?

I have a big problem with the slavery and suffering and death that sin brought to the world because of Adam and Eve. Man must be important to have all animals affected by what he chose, and even the laws of nature! Quite a different worldview than your man from flatworms thing.

-_- humanity has not existed for eons, in fact, we are a rather young species. It has been less than 1000 years since that kind of violent behavior has truly become a disadvantage,

??? What are you on about now? 1000 years?

and the selection pressure for ending that trait is very weak.

? You think war is immune to pressure of 'selection'? Man selects war!

Plus, evolution cannot impact nongenetic behaviors, this is an issue of nurture more than nature.

What about when survival is at stake?

As much as these things eat each other, they definitely put dents in their own population from it.

Chimps probably have dents in population for many reasons.

Chimps would definitely go to war as badly as we do if they were capable of it. Why wouldn't they?

It is one thing to want to kill some rapist chimp and get a park war started for awhile, but another thing to set out to destroy all men and beasts.

Sir, you yourself do not believe that repentance is going to save the living; only the dead. The living end in destruction per the bible.

?? How would I not be saved by repentance and accepting salvation that Christ gave? Of course it saves the living. Unless you want to get technical on terms and say that unsaved men are dead.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Not a mark? That would be approx the population of the US every 8 or 9 years or some such.

I have a big problem with the slavery and suffering and death that sin brought to the world because of Adam and Eve. Man must be important to have all animals affected by what he chose, and even the laws of nature! Quite a different worldview than your man from flatworms thing.
??? What are you on about now? 1000 years?



? You think war is immune to pressure of 'selection'? Man selects war!
What about when survival is at stake?



Chimps probably have dents in population for many reasons.


It is one thing to want to kill some rapist chimp and get a park war started for awhile, but another thing to set out to destroy all men and beasts.
?? How would I not be saved by repentance and accepting salvation that Christ gave? Of course it saves the living. Unless you want to get technical on terms and say that unsaved men are dead.

Well aware of that. And yet, our population keeps growing.

That's hubris and unfair to the animals who were innocent in the whole thing.

You are the one asking about evolution. Do you really think a species that reproduces at the rate humans do is going to change significantly in under 10,000 years? the 1000 year mark was just to get it closer to the point where war stopped being a definitely advantageous BEHAVIOR.

Anything that isn't genetically influenced will not be impacted by evolution. Since war is mostly a social construct, not an inherited instinct, it WON'T be influenced very much by evolution. Does this surprise you? The fact that we choose to go to war is another sign of no evolutionary influence: evolution isn't a choice.

I was actually talking about alligators putting a dent in their population from eating their own kind so much. Seriously, the top predator of juvenile alligators is other alligators that happen to be older and bigger.

I don't know of many humans in power who have the mentality of wanting to destroy everything.

I meant that those who are "saved" have to die first; physical death. I don't consider people in heaven to be alive, and neither should you. Unless you think that they reproduce.

 

[dad]

Well aware of that. And yet, our population keeps growing.

Excellent. I like babies, so does God, and so do real moms.



Sin will eventually result in most people dying on earth, and God having to rid the earth of the few left to make way for us and His wonderful kingdom coming.

Meanwhile, the trait of mankind nuking and bombing populations seems to be something of a greater degree than animals struggling for survival.

That's hubris and unfair to the animals who were innocent in the whole thing.

If God made them for us, then they are not some innocent party that is here by chance and unjustly affected...for better or worse. Speaking of traits that are counter to survival, the trait of women in particular to abandon families (selfish careers etc) seems to be a departure from natural order also.

You are the one asking about evolution. Do you really think a species that reproduces at the rate humans do is going to change significantly in under 10,000 years?

No more than in a zillion imaginary years. Sin can only be dealt with by the cross of Christ and the forgiveness that comes there.

the 1000 year mark was just to get it closer to the point where war stopped being a definitely advantageous BEHAVIOR.

? How would war be less advantageous now? Countries steal oil, topple leaders, torture, bomb civilians and etc to get wealth and power.

Anything that isn't genetically influenced will not be impacted by evolution.

Behavior then is random not an inherited trait? Ants can just leave the formation and move into your drawer, and act cute to get food?

Since war is mostly a social construct, not an inherited instinct, it WON'T be influenced very much by evolution.

A social construct must be constructed of something! It is made up of sinners doing what they are wont to do. One of the expressions of sin is murder and war. A society doesn't magically grab a construct out of the cosmos.

Does this surprise you? The fact that we choose to go to war is another sign of no evolutionary influence: evolution isn't a choice.

You HAVE NO CHOICE! War comes with the sin territory. That is why war was always here and always will be till the Prince of Peace comes! That is what war is all about. Any other notion is self deception.

I was actually talking about alligators putting a dent in their population from eating their own kind so much. Seriously, the top predator of juvenile alligators is other alligators that happen to be older and bigger.

Mothers are older and bigger than babies and kill millions and millions and millions and millions of little people every month. Every year. Isn't it about time we tossed out that so called science doctrine of devils that we are just animals? Would we not admit man, with God's help has the capacity to be more?

I don't know of many humans in power who have the mentality of wanting to destroy everything.

How many do you know? Why else would China this last week launch 3 nuclear attack subs, and Russia and the US be oiling up the nuke war games and equipment? Why do they have underground cities and bunkers for the government and others? The desire to destroy is not a 'mentality'. It is an inherent disease that surfaces aided by inspiration and spirits. All it takes is the push of a button, or an order to precipitate a series of predictable events..etc.

I meant that those who are "saved" have to die first; physical death.

Generally, that is true. Those who rise up in the time Jesus raises them in the twinkling of an eye will not die.

I don't consider people in heaven to be alive, and neither should you.

They are. Totally. Literally. Absolutely. Just as much as you and I and more. God is not the God of the dead but of the Living!

Unless you think that they reproduce.

That might be another thread

 

[TorturedSoul]

Simply put, only a small percentage are evolving so the majority that is not becomes self destructive.

 

[SuperCloud]

They do claim that mutations are beneficial, no? They do claim species evolve and get better..no? There is more war today than in Adam's day. Funny, that.

Whether or not a few, some, most, or all of the current propositions in the Theory of Evolution are true, one thing for sure is that most of us lay people be we religious or atheists, that are not well read or taught in the natural sciences don't understand what the Theory of Evolution fundamentally suggests.

Many religious and atheists alike think--incorrectly--that the Theory of Evolution proposes that species "get better" through evolution. The Theory of Evolution does not propose this.

Atheists in particular tend to think their is an Intelligent Designer rationally directing the evolution of species--or humanity in particular--in a specific direction with a rational goal of both saving humanity as a species and improving humanity as a species. But the Theory of Evolution does not propose an Intelligent Designer directing the evolution of a species with a goal "in mind."

So, for example, when a religious or atheist argues that homosexuality is evolutionarily caused for or so humanity want overpopulate they are in fact placing an Intelligent Designer in the driving seat, in the blue prints, of evolution. That Intelligent Designer they think is "nature." And "nature" they think has a mind and therefore nature can arrive at "conclusions" when a problem is presented before its great mind.

The Theory of Evolution has zero to do with anything "getting better." And "getting better" is a perception anyways.

The Theory of Evolution at base is simply a rational explanation for why traits survive, and why all life on earth shares unity and diversity biologically, altogether.

But understand a scientific theory is not a simple conjecture (that would be more so a hypothesis). Nor is a scientific theory a scientific law. A scientific theory I would describe as: an explanation of known facts and providing a rational narrative uniting those facts to known scientific laws.

A scientific theory in and of itself is not a fact. Though many--even in the sciences--often speak of scientific theories as if they were and essentially establish cults of dogmas. Which runs in total contradiction to science and its supposed principle of falsifiablity.

 

[SuperCloud]

Actually, we live in one of the most if not the most peaceful time in human history. We just flip out over conflict and are informed about it more, so it seems like a lot. Plus, we have more destructive weapons.

The 20th century has been called--by scholars--the single most bloody 100 years in all human history.

Somethings are better today than in the past and somethings are worse today than in the past. The increased destructive power of military weapons is certainly worse.

What the United States unleashed on the civilian population of Japan during the close of WWII has to go down in the history of human warfare as one of the most apocalyptic deadly of all time. When from the sky you can set babies carried in the arms of their mothers in a blaze of fire, you have pretty much evolved wicked warfare to a more deadly, efficient, and terrifying level. The United States fire bombed something like 60 Japanese cities and dropped two nuclear bombs on two other Japanese cities. The Crusader carried out massacre of Jerusalem did not compare to that. Well... it did but on a tiny micro level and with use of primitive weaponry.

 

[dad]

Simply put, only a small percentage are evolving so the majority that is not becomes self destructive.

So tell us, do you think you are one of the elite who are evolving while the rest of mankind isn't?

 

[dad]

The 20th century has been called--by scholars--the single most bloody 100 years in all human history.

Somethings are better today than in the past and somethings are worse today than in the past. The increased destructive power of military weapons is certainly worse.

What the United States unleashed on the civilian population of Japan during the close of WWII has to go down in the history of human warfare as one of the most apocalyptic deadly of all time. When from the sky you can set babies carried in the arms of their mothers in a blaze of fire, you have pretty much evolved wicked warfare to a more deadly, efficient, and terrifying level. The United States fire bombed something like 60 Japanese cities and dropped two nuclear bombs on two other Japanese cities. The Crusader carried out massacre of Jerusalem did not compare to that. Well... it did but on a tiny micro level and with use of primitive weaponry.

wow

 

[dad]

Whether or not a few, some, most, or all of the current propositions in the Theory of Evolution are true, one thing for sure is that most of us lay people be we religious or atheists, that are not well read or taught in the natural sciences don't understand what the Theory of Evolution fundamentally suggests.

I do. It suggests God is dead and a dirty liar, and that life really came from some unknown other source.

Many religious and atheists alike think--incorrectly--that the Theory of Evolution proposes that species "get better" through evolution. The Theory of Evolution does not propose this.

Atheists in particular tend to think their is an Intelligent Designer rationally directing the evolution of species--or humanity in particular--in a specific direction with a rational goal of both saving humanity as a species and improving humanity as a species. But the Theory of Evolution does not propose an Intelligent Designer directing the evolution of a species with a goal "in mind."

Great, so it is dumb as a nail.

So, for example, when a religious or atheist argues that homosexuality is evolutionarily caused for or so humanity want overpopulate they are in fact placing an Intelligent Designer in the driving seat, in the blue prints, of evolution. That Intelligent Designer they think is "nature." And "nature" they think has a mind and therefore nature can arrive at "conclusions" when a problem is presented before its great mind.

Any sick excuse for sin I guess.

The Theory of Evolution has zero to do with anything "getting better." And "getting better" is a perception anyways.

The Theory of Evolution at base is simply a rational explanation for why traits survive, and why all life on earth shares unity and diversity biologically, altogether.

If war is a trait why would it not just survive, but grow wildly?

But understand a scientific theory is not a simple conjecture (that would be more so a hypothesis). Nor is a scientific theory a scientific law. A scientific theory I would describe as: an explanation of known facts and providing a rational narrative uniting those facts to known scientific laws.

A scientific theory in and of itself is not a fact. Though many--even in the sciences--often speak of scientific theories as if they were and essentially establish cults of dogmas.

Almost every text book and documentary on evolution of life or stars does that. They have to wear it.

Which runs in total contradiction to science and its supposed principle of falsifiablity.

Maybe. But that is a bit like saying that a duck shot dead was hurt in the fall. The evo duck died before it faced a credibility gap from falsifiability I would think.

 

[TorturedSoul]

So tell us, do you think you are one of the elite who are evolving while the rest of mankind isn't?

Demographically speaking yes, because most of the world is developing without adequate food and health care. We take for granted how developed we are and others are not, so we have suicide bombers and AIDS epidemics.

 

[dad]

Demographically speaking yes, because most of the world is developing without adequate food and health care.

That makes people more evolved?

We take for granted how developed we are and others are not, so we have suicide bombers and AIDS epidemics.

Perhaps the dots connect in your head. Seems like somewhat discombobulated facts sewn together to me.