Forum menu
So we might be changing, but the changes are no longer improving the ability of our species to survive the environment we live in.
You know, what you just said there was "there's a different environment".
People adapt to make the best of it and the best at that get the best shot at passing on their genes. In the usual evolutionary way.
I spotted this on Flipboard earlier, and I thought I'd chuck it in, it shows how interbreeding in [i]Pantera[/i], the Big Cats, has enabled some, like Jaguar, to take different prey due to head and jaw size:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/interspecies-hybrids-play-a-vital-role-in-evolution-20170824/
It also covers interspecies cross-breeding in the Hominids.
This has a direct effect on the maths involving human evolution, because it introduces more variables into the gene pool than just via random mutation.
You know how there are so many different dishes on a Chinese takeaway menu? It's a bit like that.
Worth repeating…
well we share about 90% of our genome with mice, which is why they have been used in laboratories as experimental animals for research into human disease processes for years. Mice are currently used in genetic research to test gene replacement, and gene therapy because they have similar gene types to those of humans and will have similar reactions to diseases and disease processes.or
Mice are merely the protrusion into our dimension of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings who, unbeknownst to the human race, are the most intelligent species on the planet Earth. They spent a lot of their time in laboratories running complex experiments on humans. They paid Magrathea for the planet (Earth) and will now collaborate to create a new one due to the interruption of Vogons.
Thanks for that post… stopped me screaming at others in this thread.
Don't Panic.
You know how there are so many different dishes on a Chinese takeaway menu? It's a bit like that.
We're all just meat and gloop, man. Meat. And. Gloop.
Also, the OP is too focused on mutations … every single mammal birth results in a new, unique, DNA sequence … evolution is not just the result of mutations. Genes interact in different ways, and produce new characteristics, without need for quirks. New parings, new DNA sequences, new gene interactions.
Homo has been around for 2.8million years according to wikipedia. In that time it has changed shape/height/proportions etc but essentially looks very similar to modern man. They all have two eyes, two legs, two arms, a heart, a capillary system etc etc. In 2.8 million years!
You appear to be ignoring one simple thing, that mutations generally only change things significantly if it is of benefit to the organism, basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
There are organisms around that are effectively unchanged after tens of millions, if not [i]hundreds[/i] of millions of years, because there's no need for them to change, they're perfectly designed for what they d.
Sharks are one very good example, sure, they're smaller now, or at least there are no sharks the size of Megalodon, but I'm wearing a 35,000,000yo fossil shark tooth, that's identical in every way to a modern Tiger shark, and the Great White is just a smaller relative of Megalodon; there just isn't the prey for an 80ft carnivorous fish!
Dragonflies are another example, I was watching one this afternoon hawking over a stretch of river, and it's a perfect predator of small flying insects; it's fundamentally unchanged from dragonflies from Meganeura, a dragonfly from the Carboniferous period, that's 300,000,000 years ago, [i]three hundred million![/i] The big difference was size, they had twenty-five to over twenty-seven [i]inch[/i] wingspans! A hunting flying insect the size of a large bird of prey!
How, because the atmosphere was far richer in oxygen then, allowing insects to evolve to much larger sizes, they've now evolved to exist on a less oxygen-rich atmosphere.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura
And humans cannot build a machine that can fly as fast, or manoeuvre, like a dragonfly can, an insect with a wingspan about four inches across, that can cruise with scarcely a wingbeat, then suddenly accelerate up to around 60mph, and change direction almost instantaneously is an extraordinary creature, other than size, it's fundamentally identical, because it fills its niche perfectly, and has no need to change.
Humans are omnivorous, they have an opposable thumb, and have dexterity and the ability to make tools, and to adapt to their environment, not by changing themselves, but by building and making things to help themselves adapt - clothes, shelter, fire, etc.
Not, not able. Faith is the evidence of things unseen. If God turned up right in front of you with a big beard and a commanding voice and demanded you wouldn't really have much choice in whether you belived in him or not.
Faith is nothing of the sort, and you know It! There is no concrete [i]evidence[/i] of any deity, only a [i]belief[/i] that such a thing exists, and a [i]hope[/i] that one day proof might turn up to support that [i]belief[/i].
If someone turned up in front of me with a beard and a commanding voice, demanding whatever unspecified [i]thing[/i], (you haven't said what he's supposed to be demanding), I'd walk around him, tutting to myself and wondering why he's off his meds.
I'd certainly have a choice whether or not to believe, because all I'd have evidence of, on front of my eyes, is some random, unkempt bloke standing in the street shouting at me.
That's because I don't accept what someone says I [i]ought[/i] to believe, just 'cos he says I ought to, because [i]faith[/i], right?
Walks away tutting loudly...
Not read the thread. Has the OP posited a better theory than evolution yet?
Faith is nothing of the sort, and you know It! There is no concrete evidence of any deity, only a belief that such a thing exists, and a hope that one day proof might turn up to support that belief.
If someone turned up in front of me with a beard and a commanding voice, demanding whatever unspecified thing, (you haven't said what he's supposed to be demanding), I'd walk around him, tutting to myself and wondering why he's off his meds.
I'd certainly have a choice whether or not to believe, because all I'd have evidence of, on front of my eyes, is some random, unkempt bloke standing in the street shouting at me.
That's because I don't accept what someone says I ought to believe, just 'cos he says I ought to, because faith, right?
Walks away tutting loudly...
You're demonstrably missing the point.. God doesn't want your unquestioning loyalty because he says so and proves his existence beyond doubt. He wants you to chose to believe in him through faith.
And then give him your unquestioning loyalty
If God turned up right in front of you with a big beard and a commanding voice and demanded you wouldn't really have much choice in whether you belived in him or not.
He would have to convince me he was God first.
He wants you to chose to believe in him through faith. And then give him your unquestioning loyalty
How do you know? Have you asked?
jonnyboi - Member
God doesn't want your unquestioning loyalty because he says so and proves his existence beyond doubt. He wants you to chose to believe in him through faith.
How convenient...
There is a whole lot of Lamarkism here. I love it.
Instead of greatest benefit, it is sometimes easier to consider matters in terms of least negative effect. Survival is barely achievable, anything that nudges the odds in your favour is kept.
Those that might become bald post reproduction still manage to pass on the trait of baldness.
God doesn't want your unquestioning loyalty because he says so and proves his existence beyond doubt. He wants you to chose to believe in him through faith.And then give him your unquestioning loyalty
And you know this how precisely? Where is your evidence? If you say you don't need evidence because you have faith, well, isn't that just massively convenient.
Please don't be deliberately obtuse.
I'm not not being obtuse, I'm trying to unpick what appears to be contradictory. I've presumably misunderstood something, please let me know where I've gone wrong. (I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely trying to understand.)
You asked how you can comprehend what God desires of you and I answered you.
[s]No you didn't, you replied in one word "omnipotence," which is a nonsense answer.[/s]
EDIT: no you didn't, I was misremembering, you said to go to Church and find out. Which is a similar non-answer.
That doesn't translate into being able to completely define the true will of God.
So you're saying, mortals can learn to understand some of the will of god but not all of it?
Omnipotence means among other things, divine right.
Assuming that to be true for the sake of argument, you're suggesting that the answer to "why did god allow sin" is "because he can," is that right?
Still seems pretty malevolent to me TBH. And you worship this, right? A supernatural being that gave us cancer because someone ate an apple once?
You are expecting a logical answer on your own terms, of the divine.
No, I'm expecting a logical answer period. Logic doesn't have "terms," something is either logical or it's not. If you're offering an illogical explanation because "devine" then fair enough, but just say that then.
(Sorry for the delay in replying BTW, I've been dealing with a major outage at work and only just got home.)
Not read the thread. Has the OP posited a better theory than evolution yet?
'Theory' in the scientific sense of the word or in the 'making shit up' sense of the word?
Neither, at last glance. OP?
there are only two reasons to not accept evolution on current known facts1. you are religious and you dont need facts
2. you are incredibly stupid
3. You're inherently sceptical.
"Accept" is a problem word here. I accept that it's the best answer we have currently and probably a correct explanation, but I reject the notion that it's irrefutably true. Because science.
God doesn't want your unquestioning loyalty because he says so and proves his existence beyond doubt. He wants you to chose to believe in him through faith.
And now we're back to "how do you know?" again. You said earlier that we cannot "completely define the true will of God." Yet here you're claiming to know what god wants.
Who are you to claim to absolutely know what he wants? He could actually want us to murder each other in our sleep, Old Testament fire and brimstone stuff.
You're demonstrably missing the point.. God doesn't want your unquestioning loyalty because he says so and proves his existence beyond doubt. He wants you to chose to believe in him through faith.And then give him your unquestioning loyalty
[img]
[/img]Sorry son, but you have got to be taking the piss, shirley.
I'm supposed to listen to a voice in my head, purportedly from some mythical being, and give him my unquestioning loyalty, because he says I have to?
Seriously?
And when his voice in my head tells me some random soul is satan and I have to kill that person, that's all right with you, then?
There's a word for that sort of condition, and those with it are locked up for society's safety.
Or sometimes let out, forget to take their meds, with tragic results.
mHow convenient
It wasn't my idea, that's how Christianity works, if you don't like it don't join them
Can we give all religions a fair shake because they all seem to have evolved (Creation) stories to explain why we are here. Almost as if before the advent of the scientific method - we had little option other than making shit up?
For instance:
Enuma Elish begins with the universe unformed and containing only water. Only two beings exist in this unformed creation: Apsu, the fresh waters, and his wife, Tiamat, who is the salt water and the chaotic oceans. Tiamat is depicted as a monstrous dragon. From their union, silt forms, as it does when a freshwater river runs into the salty sea; from that, the gods arise, and the universe begins to take form. The gods begin to have children of their own, and soon there are many of them ruling the cosmos.This new order of things is too much for Apsu, who is bothered by the noise and commotion caused by the gods. He decides to destroy them, despite the fact that they are his progeny. Tiamat is horrified by her husband's plan to attack her children and opposes Apsu, but cannot defeat him.
Apsu is eventually conquered by the god Ea, his own great-grandson, who uses a spell to subdue Apsu and keep him imprisoned in a deathlike state of sleep. All seems well, and Ea and his wife have a son, the god Marduk, who as a child is the favorite of the other gods. They give him the winds as a toy to play with, but the winds stir up trouble on the salty seas, enraging Tiamat. Tiamat, her new husband, the god Kingu, and a group of gods to which she has given birth swear revenge for this and for Ea's treatment of Apsu - although, breaks in the text leave her reasons for this change of allegiance somewhat vague.
What's up with that then? Sounds good enough to spawn a load of subsequent tales? Eh?
And now we're back to "how do you know?" again. You said earlier that we cannot "completely define the true will of God." Yet here you're claiming to know what god wants. Is that not a tad arrogant?Who are you to claim to absolutely know what he wants? He could want us to murder each other in our sleep, Old Testament fire and brimstone stuff.
I'm not claiming to know absolutely anything. I'm just pointing out how Christianity works. If you don't like it then take it up with the bible.
This militant atheism is very disconcerting though, it's an ugly trait.
jonnyboi - Member
This militant atheism is very disconcerting though, it's an ugly trait.
No uglier than blind faith...
EDIT
No uglier than blind faith of whatever persuasion, and all that can entail in our current cultures.
This [s]militant atheism[/s] unshakeable skepticism coupled with a demand for evidence is very disconcerting though, it's an ugly trait. Unlike unquestioning faith in the face of evidence to the contrary.
FTFY
I sometimes ask of highly religious people; if they or their loved ones were to be hauled up in the dock on a (false) charge of murder - would they wish the good members of the jury to decide their fate on:
A. Faith against overwhelming evidence (including forensic)?, or
B. Overwhelming evidence (including forensic)?
Well that's just rude
I'm not claiming to know absolutely anything.
Oh ok, so you're happy to concede that you might be wrong about what god wants?
I'm more than happy to change my mind about what I think about evolution if our evidence shifted. If god rocked up tomorrow and started doing irrefutably goddy things I'd convert in a heartbeat.
I'm just pointing out how Christianity works. If you don't like it then take it up with the bible.
Well, no, you're shifting the goalposts now. No-one other than you was talking about the bible, I was merely trying to get to the bottom of your seemingly self-contradictory statements in order to understand what -you- thought.
This militant atheism is very disconcerting though, it's an ugly trait.
That's Woppit you're thinking of but thanks for the ad hominem, always a sure sign that you're on solid ground in a discussion.
I'm not a militant atheist (any more), sceptical atheist might be more accurate?
It can't be in the usual evolutionary way, which is wobbliscott's point, and what makes it so fascinating. Stephen Jay Gould said that natural selection hadn't been relevant in humans for 20,000 years, (possibly going a bit overboard to make a point), but still - what is the genetic difference between us and someone from say 500 years ago? Very slight, yet humanity is unrecognisable - so what's changed? Clearly things like ideas, communication, social interactions, record keeping etc are driving human evolution (in the lay sense of the word), at a hugely faster pace than classic phenotype / genotype Darwinian evolution.mrmonkfinger - MemberSo we might be changing, but the changes are no longer improving the ability of our species to survive the environment we live in.
You know, what you just said there was "there's a different environment".
People adapt to make the best of it and the best at that get the best shot at passing on their genes. In the usual evolutionary way.
Or to put it another way - what happens when you take some cows and put them in a field, then come back in one thousand years? The cows are still standing around chewing the cud, maybe one has slightly bigger hooves, or a shaggier coat. But they're still basically doing fk all.
Now take some humans and put them in a field. 1000 years later they look pretty much the same, too. Maybe a bit taller on average. But they've built the Starship Enterprise.
Well that's just rude
How is calling faith "ugly" rude, but calling atheism "ugly" not?
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, or something.
But they've built the Starship Enterprise.
And I bet they still fling poop and argue over all of this, even while piloting The Starship Enterprise...
I was merely trying to get to the bottom of your seemingly self-contradictory statements in order to understand what -you- thought.
All my answers you your questions have been entirely consistent. If you don't understand them or they don't confirm to your worldview isn't something I can fix. But you should ask questions based on seeking enlightenment rather than simply to try to undermine someone or score points.
I do hope you learn and grow from this interaction
How is calling faith "ugly" rude, but calling atheism "ugly" not?Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, or something.
Militancy is any form is ugly, why do you feel the need to reply to every comment I make to others?
Because, like those who have faith, those who don't might seek to support others with similar views?
Before they've even replied? There's a fine line between that and religious intolerance
All my answers you your questions have been entirely consistent.
No, they haven't. As far as I can see, you claim to know what god wants, whilst simultaneously claiming that it's not possible to know what god wants.
Now, as I said before, it's entirely possible that I've misunderstood. Assuming that to be the case, I'd love to know where I've gone wrong. I'm not trying to "undermine" anything or "score points," I'm trying to establish exactly what you're trying to say because you appear to be self-contradictory.
I'm not "seeking enlightenment," I'm seeking to understand what you (not god or the bible or christianity) believe.
I do hope you learn and grow from this interaction
I'm trying, but you're not actually addressing any of my questions, you're ignoring them and responding with mild insults.
For instance, from the previous page: Are you happy to concede that you might be wrong about what you think god wants?
Militancy is any form is ugly,
Ah ok, so it's the militancy you object to rather than the atheism? That's fair enough.
[i]Militant: "favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause."[/i] Have I been confrontational or violent? That wasn't my intention if so and I'm sorry if you feel that way. Like I said, I'm just asking questions because I don't understand.
why do you feel the need to reply to every comment I make to others?
I'm not replying to every comment you make to others, don't take it personally. I'm replying to comments made generally. This is a discussion forum, it's how discussion works.
Why on earth are people seeing this as science vs religion?
It's only a sub-set of religious people that deny evolution. Creationism is not inherent to Christianity, is it?
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html ]Pope Francis[/url]
I genuinely can't tell if jonniboy is religious or just trolling. Either way you're not coming across too well to be honest.
Why on earth are people seeing this as science vs religion?
I don't think most of us were until a certain individual came along. I don't think religion should be discussed alongside evolution at all. The two things, to me, are about as separate as you can get
Who are you to claim to absolutely know what he wants?
He might want us to go about our business with no thought or care as to what he wants… those seeking to believe in him, and do his bidding, might be be completely messing up his little experiment/game/creation.
Creationism is not inherent to Christianity, is it?
I'm staying with some very strongly Christian family members at the moment, and, over drinks this evening, they brought up that a neighbour had declared themeselves a creationist. They haven't been able to speak to them since… they are deeply uncomfortable with anyone who can live in the modern world and ignore long standing and strongly supported scientific knowledge.
I do hope you learn and grow from this interaction
Sanctimonious, much?
Militancy is any form is ugly
Especially when the militants claim to have god on their side. Which god would that be, by the way?
Why on earth are people seeing this as science vs religion?
Because that's where this tangent started.
they have mutated from their original perfect form because of sin.
Seemingly god gave us / allowed us sin because it's important for us to know something that we cannot understand. Or something. I've kind of lost track, to be honest.
Creationism is not inherent to Christianity, is it?
Absolutely not, and there are plenty of Christian scientists so it can certainly co-exist. Where the wheels come of is when the fringe Xtians such as Creationists assert that science is wrong because god. (Not that I'm saying this is what Jonny is doing, just so we're clear.)
I've never really understood why such questions often seem to degenerate into Religion vs Evolution.
From my (admittedly limited) understanding of the world's religions, in most cases the deity is omnipotent. That's omnipotent. A bit like infinite, it trumps everything else.
Said deity is usually attirbuted with having created "the universe" - surely that term is not limited to the physical space, but also to all the principles, laws and immutable certainties? So, in this universe, said deity has ordained that e=m times c(squared), opposites attract (or mutually annihilate each other), pies have lids and the fittest survive. It her previous project it might have been that e's = good, opposites fail to interact with one another, pies have basil and the fattest flourish.
Suggesting that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive is logically flawed (sorry, Professor Dawkins). If you're religious, surely [b]anything[/b] can exist if your God wants it to, including evolutionary diversification. I'm sure some might argue that evolution proves the existence of an overarching power, orchestrating it all.
Not sure that's going to help the OP, but I feel better for getting it off my chest.
Tl;dr
Religion and an acceptance of evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Things you can believe in include:
• There is a God and it created the world and universe exactly as we see it today
• There is no God and life came about through spontaneous chemical reactions, and has changed due to evolutionary processes
• There is a God and it created a universe in which life came about through spontaneous chemical reactions, and has changed due to evolutionary processes
• There is no God, no evolution and… well… still waiting for an alternative from the OP.
Suggesting that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive is logically flawed
Agreed.
It's... difficult, but it's not mutually exclusive (as I said, there are plenty of religious scientists).
I've spoken about this before, but I used to know a polymath, one of the most brilliant minds I've ever known. He was a Christian. I asked him about it once and we lost an afternoon to it. The TL;DR was that he parked religion in a separate box marked "other" where normal rules don't apply.
You're demonstrably missing the point.. God doesn't want your unquestioning loyalty because he says so and proves his existence beyond doubt. He wants you to chose to believe in him through faith.And then give him your unquestioning loyalty
So he (why do you say it is a he)? Is a bit of a Kim Jong-Un Power Trip kinda guy?