Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Poster0]

Modern medicine has made appendicitis rarely fatal, so it will not disappear.

Do you actually believe that? Going by this assertion, the human body should be completely disease resistant by now, and should live forever, because it has had millions of years to evolve, or is it 200,000 years? Either way, it should surely have evolved into disease resistant perfection by now. However, we know this is not true.

IT seems more rational to believe that evolution, for the most part, is either a hoax, or just plain bad science.

 

[bhsmte]

One more thing. Its obvious that everyone here has a political or religious agenda and anything said here is hardly objective. I would not expect a scientist to come to a Christian website and argue about evolution, unless they had a religious agenda, whether atheistic or some other belief.

One way to become more objective, is to rely on objective evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually, some students scrape by for years by being able to object to established knowledge in original, or at least amusing ways. Eventually they are forced to give some real solid results.

Then most of them are screwed into the ground because they were just talk. If they can provide something real, they are set for life. Seriously. I did that. I am retired. I post here for amusement.

And boy, can it be amusing and also entertaining.

 

[bhsmte]

It would be more accurate to call them new breeds. There are variances in species - of course!

What you really mean, is it would be more comfortable.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Do you actually believe that? Going by this assertion, the human body should be completely disease resistant by now, and should live forever, because it has had millions of years to evolve, or is it 200,000 years? Either way, it should surely have evolved into disease resistant perfection by now. However, we know this is not true..

Clueless.

If a disease did not interfere with reproduction, then it had no evolutionary effect. There are other counter examples. Try to get the first easy one.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

A better way to go about it is to ask "is the theory of evolution a justifiable palette for moral ethics".
In which case, it presumably isn't. There's only survival of the fittest and primacy of the apex, which is diametrically opposed to absolute morals and God being apex.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

the human body should be completely disease resistant by now, and should live forever, because it has had millions of years to evolve, or is it 200,000 years? Either way, it should surely have evolved into disease resistant perfection by now. However, we know this is not true.

Evolution doesn't have an end goal in mind.
Viruses also evolve. That is why there are always new flu shots.
HIV is constantly evolving. There are people who have a genetic mutation that makes them more resistant to HIV.
http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news13

IT seems more rational to believe that evolution, for the most part, is either a hoax, or just plain bad science.

Evolution is an observable fact. It doesn't care what you believe.

 

[Poster0]

And boy, can it be amusing and also entertaining.

Sounds a little sadistic, or childish perhaps.

 

[Poster0]

Clueless.

If a disease did not interfere with reproduction, then it had no evolutionary effect. There are other counter examples. Try to get the first easy one.

I'm not understanding your assertion. You said that a diseased appendix would affect reproduction? How?

 

[Poster0]

Evolution doesn't have an end goal in mind.
Viruses also evolve. That is why there are always new flu shots.
HIV is constantly evolving. There are people who have a genetic mutation that makes them more resistant to HIV.
http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news13



Evolution is an observable fact. It doesn't care what you believe.

That's not what our friend, the can of Campbell's Primordial soup, says.

 

[Poster0]

Y'all are contracting each other again, just like with the 200,000 year vs 5 million year thing. First, our renowned and esteemed scientist, the can of Campbell's soup, said that Evolution would have done away with the appendix because it interfered with reproduction. This assertion would indicate that evolution does have an end goal. Then our other specialist from Minnesota contradicted him by saying that evolution has no logic, nor end goal.

Which is it? And please explain to me how a diseased appendix would effect human reproduction, because I have a follow up question, depending on the answer of course. Please take the popcorn out of your hand and put on your tin foil thinking caps. This should be interesting.

 

[Skaloop]

Y'all are contracting each other again, just like with the 200,000 year vs 5 million year thing. First, our renowned and esteemed scientist, the can of Campbell's soup, said that Evolution would have done away with the appendix because it interfered with reproduction. This assertion would indicate that evolution does have an end goal. Then our other specialist from Minnesota contradicted him by saying that evolution has no logic, nor end goal.

Which is it? And please explain to me how a diseased appendix would effect human reproduction, because I have a follow up question, depending on the answer of course. Please take the popcorn out of your hand and put on your tin foil thinking caps. This should be interesting.

Please link to the post (or provide the post number) in which Dr. Hurd said that evolution would have done away with the appendix because it interferes with reproduction. On the contary, he explained why evolution hasn't done away with the appendix because appendicitis does not inhibit reproduction.

Futher, Dr. Hurd never suggested that evolution has an end goal. You erroneously inferred that.

A diseased appendix wold only affect reproduction if it killed a person before maturity, or if it caused them to become sterile as a child, or made them unable to reproduce in some other way.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

A better way to go about it is to ask "is the theory of evolution a justifiable palette for moral ethics".
In which case, it presumably isn't. There's only survival of the fittest and primacy of the apex, which is diametrically opposed to absolute morals and God being apex.

You are still wrong. It is a common error. In a Darwinian viewpoint, a mouse is a success. A rabbit is a success. A fly is a success. A human is (temporarily) a success.

I'll see if that sinks in before commenting further.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

And boy, can it be amusing and also entertaining.

It can be a bit harsh. But scientists are known to be far more competitive than business people.

 

[Poster0]

Please link to the post (or provide the post number) in which Dr. Hurd said that evolution would have done away with the appendix because it interferes with reproduction. On the contary, he explained why evolution hasn't done away with the appendix because appendicitis does not inhibit reproduction.

Futher, Dr. Hurd never suggested that evolution has an end goal. You erroneously inferred that.

A diseased appendix wold only affect reproduction if it killed a person before maturity, or if it caused them to become sterile as a child, or made them unable to reproduce in some other way.

You are correct that he did say the appendix didn't interfere with reproduction, I stand corrected.

However he did say that modern medicine has made appendicitis rarely fatal, so it will not disappear. This seems to be his explanation as to why it didn't disappear, maybe I misunderstood his intention? Regardless however, his assertion still suggested that evolution has an end goal, otherwise his explanation concerning Darwin's misunderstandings would not appear to make sense. He could have just said Darwin was wrong to assume that Evolution has an end goal, but he didn't. His words actually seem to suggest that he believes that Evolution does in fact evolve in a way that benefits the human body.


Post 534

By reading Darwin, and reading current research.

Charles R. Darwin thought that the human vermiform appendix was going to be soon eliminated by evolution. It killed thousands of people every year in England, and thousands every day globally by appendicitis

What he had missed were 3 things; 1) appendicitis was not always fatal; 2) appendicitis was not a commonly fatal childhood disease interfering with reproduction; 3) the appendix retained a modest function totally unrelated to the original organ. In fact, the human vermiform appendix had evolved.

That last fact is rather ironic.

Post 539

In an evolutionary context, the human vermiform appendix was not a "second stomach" to ferment cellulose. That is "vestigial." C.R. Darwin thought it would disappear. Modern medicine has made appendicitis rarely fatal, so it will not disappear

.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Y'all are contracting each other again,

No.

You are just unable to follow even a simple logical presentation of facts.

Get some sleep.

 

[Poster0]

It can be a bit harsh. But scientists are known to be far more competitive than business people.

I would expect an educated person to show more humility, yet the scriptures do say that knowledge puffs up the ego. That's why God makes mans wisdom foolishness. That's why he allows man to believe that he evolved from apes.

 

[Poster0]

No.

You are just unable to follow even a simple logical presentation of facts.

Get some sleep.

Yes, I'm just an idiot, I'm too stupid to see that we evolved from apes.

 

[SteveB28]

Ok, we know, man evolved from apes, thank you.

No, we did not. We evolved from an ancestor common to ourselves and the other apes.

 

[Poster0]

No, we did not. We evolved from an ancestor common to ourselves and the other apes.

WE evolved from something that looked like an ape, lived like an ape, and was no smarter than a chimp. Forgive me if I call it an ape.