ever noticed that people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. “I believe God created me in one day” Yeah, looks liked He rushed it.
bill hicks
you believe the world is 4000 years old? really? ok, i got a question for you. One word question. DINOSAURS. You know, the world is 4000 years old, dinosaurs existed in that time YOU THINK THEY WOULD HAVE MENTIONED IT IN THE BIBLE.
“And oh the disciples walked to Nazareth but the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus with a splinter in his paw. And oh the disciples ran amock. But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the Brontosaurus paw and the big lizard became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland to live in a loch for oh so many years inviting fat American tourists with their fat families and their fat dollar bills. And oh SCOTLAND did PRAISE THE LORD!”
heh okay now that i have had a good laugh at how fast people jumped on me there. i think ill reply =) i think i poorly worded what i said and in hindsite i can see understand how i was blown out of the water there. i do not doubt evolution… i just think there is more to it then simple random mutations. for soem reason i feel inclined to believe that there is something on the part of the organism that brings about changed in the organism that is not totally random.
however this could just be me backtracking to try and seem cool. so i hope yall will have sum faith in my werds =)
There is. Its called natural selection. And its as non-random as they come 
Thats shades of Lamarckianism I see, something which has been proved wrong many times.
- Sivakami.
louise and ClarkyCat…I can’t stop laughing…
Skull of earliest human relative discovered… which pushes the time [and the explanations] back a bit. Just FYI.
As far as I know, science sustains the evolutionist theory.
But I found this site you might want to take a look at.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/index.htm
What do you say?
Ben
I studied with a Jehovah Witness and she had a fight with my geography teacher over the creation of continents. She said the continents were divided by the Noah’s Arc flooding (don’t know how to translate this properly). Needless say that the teacher was shocked.
A simple example of evolution is that of wolves who live close to towns, as they have evolved to be less aggressive or scared of humans. There used to be wolves who were aggressive and unafraid of humans but they got all eventually got shot. That’s modern day natural selection.
Also a sample of what evolution can do is the creation of chiuanas and all breeds of dogs from wolves in less than 10,000 years (when we started domesticating wolves).
Now there’s the power of evolution for ya. (Although there was some deliberate breeding by us,but it’s an example of how bloody fast it works).
Oh, H20, afraid to say that the website you referred just misunderstands evolution completely. I’ve also heard the Mount St.Helens objection before, and seen it more than utterly decimated, slaughtered and ridiculed by real scientists. I think it was on the talk Origins website, but could have been elsewhere.
That is simply wrong. It cannot logically be the case given the geographic diversity of human alleles.
Charles Darwin struck the world off guard not just because of his evaluation of how animals evolve, for that was a minor jab from his research, but his knock out blow came from the consequences of his views onto everything else in our lives…from religion to economy and many others.
For instance, prior to Darwin the leading view was that because things obviously had purpose, it must mean that there is conscious design in them. Since we didn’t construct nature, something else must have, something that is greater than nature…but what could be greater than nature. Why God ofcourse. This theory was best explained and held the attention of most people by a philosopher named William Paley (has some very interesting views). Many of you may know him for his WATCH analogy in proving conscious design. Anyway, Darwin came by, suggested and then showed to great certainty that it was not only possible but most likely the case that everything has purpose without there being a God or conscious design, but instead there is what he controversially called Natural Selection. I say controversially because his use of the word ‘Selection’ caused some serious misinterpretations of his view. There is no selecting going on by God, nature, or animals. Scholars believe that if Darwin had the chance, he would have renamed it Natural Preservation, since his view is about the natural preservation of those animals and plants that are best adapted to their environment and circumstances. Strictly speaking, to put his view more precisely, Natural Selection is the preservation of advantageous variation and rejection of disadvantageous variation. I hope it is obvious to readers why this would have a huge impact on religious institutions. One should also put themselves in the mind set of Darwin’s time and the power and influence the church had.
The concise version of how Natural Selection works is as follows:
- If creatures in a population vary (variation)
- If there is competition amonst them for resources and reproduction
- If trait, T…, gives advantage to a group of members
- If trait, T…, is heritable (heritability)
- Therefore, there will be an increase of the trait amongst its members
- Therefore, over a long period of time the group of members of the species with trait, T, will differ greatly from its original population.
The scary thing here is that this can also be viewed as an economic system, or even an economic prescription. I wonder if there is something to this idea of people making things up and not realizing its applicability, another person who had the same thing happen with his view was John Nash (ironically, his was used as an economic system as well). Just implement money into Darwin’s formula above and see what you get…If money between creatures in a population vary, If there is competition for money between creatures, If money gives advantage to a group of members, If money is heritable (it is)
Therefore, there will be an increase of money amongst its members
Therefore, over a long period of time the group of members with the most money will differ greatly from its original population (this can be taken as the divide between the rich and the poor).
I’m curious, what does everyone think about this?
Furthermore, there is something happening in our world that has never happened before, well there are many and varied things, but the individual notion i am referring to is globalization in the context of open borders between all the countries of the world (generally speaking). Cultures, races, and ethnic people intermixing from all corners of the world. What effects can you fortell might happen?
Darwin has something to say about it "We shall best understand the probable course of natural selection by taking the case of a coutnry under-going some physical change…we may conclude, from what we have seen of the intimate and complex manner in which the inhabitants of each country are bound together, that any change in the numerical proportions of some of the inhabitants, independently of the change of climate itself, would most seriously affect many of the others. If the country were open on its borders, new forms would certainly immigrate, and this also would seriously disturb the relations of some of the former inhabitants. Let it be remembered how powerful the influence of a single introduced tree or mammal has been shown to be. But in the case of an island, or of a country partly surrounded by barriers, into which new and better adapted forms could not freely enter, we should then have places in the economy of nature which would assuredly be better filled up, if some of the original inhabitants were in some manner modified; for had the area been open to immigration, these same places would have been seized on by intruders. "(On The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection: Chapter IV, Pg. 81, Charles Darwin)
Remember, Darwin said that NS is not teleological, there is no end to which it is striving for. There isn’t any complexity to which it is working for. It’s all random, statistical, and works by chance. This means that those races that reproduce the most are the one’s with the advantage, especially now. We have programs such as welfare, baby bonuses, etc. This means that people can choose to not consider the impacts of having 10 babies because that society will provide for them and take care of them so their babies can grow up to be mature adults. Funny, we have an endangered species list, containing animals that are close to extinction. I think within the next hundred years we will be faced with a endangered race list, containing races that are close to extinction. To give an example, some say that there is a fear of America become predominantly Spanish, because they reproduce so much. The question is, can morality be put in the picture? Tough question. I know someone who is spanish and has 9 other siblings, a mixture of boys and girls. So their parents had ten kids. Can we even ask if this is right or wrong? Or is it outside of morality? Aren’t they just the one’s who have the advantage of natural selection? Aren’t they bettere adapted to their surroundings? Aren’t they just doing what they are naturally predisposed to do? Isn’t giving birth the whole point of life? Shouldn’t they be allowed to have as many kids as they want? Or do we have something more to consider? What might some things and their factors be? What do you all think?
More later…
What’s your take?
Creationism/evolution-- there is too much evidence to support evolution through scientific method: and we dont have god fearing victorians to worry about as darwin’s dominationalism did.
Evidence has shown that over the last 200 years the opportunity that natural selection(the ability to pass on mutated genes) has went down 90%. This is as, specialised characterist’s that pass on have been diluted. At first we were dark skinned, tall and thin as we moved to the poles were we had more vit.D(white skin) plus been smaller and rounder. Darwin times half the children were dead by 25 through disease’s and such were selection occurs,(which has put medicine on call for superviruses) and now the rest of the world has moved to a western model of 1955. With ower lust all mating parterns have happened too.
Magius stated:
Well the massive hype about designer baby’s–a new world of gene rich and gene poor, is the frighting direction which genetic manipulation is heading. Like is past time’s were the balance of earth, air, fire and water intailed the person you are; the ablility of a future rich couple been able to change a kid’s characherist’s could it lead to some utopian?
Could it lead to them getting ride of phycho genes like depression, fear which they’ve isolated in mouse?(ok, far less complex, and were would art go) What’s everyone else take on this? Would some ideal be reached?
We are the furthest animal to develop the most from body to mind! But
“The highest form of life is known to disimilar to me”–Wodington. It depends on have we judge intellect is’nt it?
Extrovert
Introvert
open mindness
counsciousness-self awareness
Future evolution is less diverse and evening out-the future is brown! Instead of sending kid’s to oxford, could they programmed to be intelligent?
“none” not “known” in red: and could they be programmed
[im very tired!]
As an aside, I don’t buy the Darwinist justification for neoliberal economics at all. People who use it tend to forget that fittest means best adapted, and that the conditions of society determine what is best adapted; there is no guarantee that a well adapted person is useful, intelligent or pleasant to be around.
Grave disorder
That’s quite right and it is frighting and it maybe a long time till anything happen’s, but will it stop research?–what happen’s when people attack “cruelty to animals” they hide it under medical research. Were no longer creationalist’s, god itsnt quite as frightening anymore and people will test and toy. China was cloning people years ago. People will have to adapt no matter intellect, are if they nice, and they will be useful- it’ll be medical research.
One of the rules of science though isn’t it, if it can be done, it will be done, no matter how horrifying it is.
Well im of the view that if its safe for them and there child to change the body then they will. And imagine what will happen kids larger, muscular, larger brain, good looking etc. That would be brilliant a super race, been able to prove that they deserve a higher place in civilization. Were already slave’s in a way, physically it could be forced if there are many; but perhaps all kids will be programmed and kill all none genetically manipulated. The “olympian state” children placed in science others to rule, others enforce.
Grave Disorder stated:
I hope you don’t think that I was justifying neoliberal economics using Darwinism? I said no such thing. I just said that Natural Selection can be viewed to be an economic formula, and in fact it has been taken to be that by many authors and scholars.
Grave Disorder stated:
The first statement I agree with though I think you should have clarified and delved deeper into it. It isn’t simply the fittest means the best adapted. More like, the fittest means the best adapted in the right ways (see my elaboration on Natural Selection in my previous post). The latter statement you made I would completely disagree with, though I understand what you mean. Remember, Natural Selection is a race for procreation. Societies conditions tell us that the best adapted are those who are rich, yet it is the poor who procreate the most.
What’s your take?