The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I'm not really seeing the reasoning behind "evolution proves God exists". As it stands, it's extremely circular.
If you can elaborate on how exactly evolution needs an outside force to occur, that might help explain your view better.
no no no, sorry.
i dont believe that evolution HAS to be controlled by another being. i believe that our evolution, this world/earth's evolution has been designed/helped along.
That's great. You're certainly entitled to that belief. But you aren't doing a good job of conveying why this belief is well-thought-out to the rest of us.
Looking over these last couple of pages, I think you would benefit from reading Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene, as it would clear up almost all the misconceptions you've revealed therein to have about natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc.
I really cannot stress how much I recommend you read it.
lets just say, that sin=not following the golden rule which that society lives by, so you wouldn't/COULDN'T function in that society. so, naturally, you would not be able to stay in that society.
So I take it you or someone you know has never been robbed?
i dont know where you are going with this...
you wouldnt be able to stay in that society because the "authorities" would weed you out and kick you out.
Except that they don't always find the criminal. In fact, for petty crime they almost never do.
And there's all the exceptions including people who manage to get away with the big crimes too.
Quid on
0
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
lets just say, that sin=not following the golden rule which that society lives by, so you wouldn't/COULDN'T function in that society. so, naturally, you would not be able to stay in that society.
So I take it you or someone you know has never been robbed?
i dont know where you are going with this...
you wouldnt be able to stay in that society because the "authorities" would weed you out and kick you out.
Ah, so your perfect society is an authoritarian police state where disobedience is met with exile?
Without any evidence it doesn't prove anything it just fails to rule it out. Evolution does not need God to exist nor does God need evolution to exist. The two are wholly separate concepts and whatever overlap you think exists is purely philosophical/theological in nature.
All I'm saying is that I believe that because we are doing the things we do today (all the things we've talked about already) points towards the possibly that God is the pinnacle of the evolutionary cycle. I'm not saying that you have to believe it. But what we can do now, just makes it so much more real and possible that a God-like Being can/does exist.
No, it doesn't. It's just as real and possible as it was when the Pope's were fighting over Apostolic succession.
To me, this isn't the theological or philosophical aspect of my belief system. Because its using science and not feelings/thoughts/ponderings/ to solidify the existence of God.
It does none of those things because it is a theological or philosophical aspect of your belief system and not in any way science. Microwavable hot pockets do not prove the existence of God/gods. If anything they might point to the absence of a truly just and loving God/gods.
It does none of those things because it is a theological or philosophical aspect of your belief system and not in any way science. Microwavable hot pockets do not prove the existence of God/gods. If anything they might point to the absence of a truly just and loving God/gods.
I would agree if it weren't for beer.
Quid on
0
Garret Dorigan"Why can't I be DLC for UMvC3?"Registered Userregular
lets just say, that sin=not following the golden rule which that society lives by, so you wouldn't/COULDN'T function in that society. so, naturally, you would not be able to stay in that society.
So I take it you or someone you know has never been robbed?
i dont know where you are going with this...
you wouldnt be able to stay in that society because the "authorities" would weed you out and kick you out.
I think that he is intoning the fact that no society is perfect, and that there are those that fall thru the cracks and those that work the system outside of the mean dynamic.
But, in a similar way to my own agnostic 'beliefs', I don't believe that something that could be (note the stress on that, and understand accordingly that this is not meant in any sort of derisive way) viewed as didactic will have the response that you had hoped for.
well, despite that being true or not. it doesn't change the point/argument of the topic. whether its 7 or 100 percent. evolution would still increase our species' line of brain potential.
Not true. Evolution doesn't mean improved brain capacity. It mostly just means change.
And evolution as it has been forever doesn't really apply to humans anymore.
If our species is still around long enough for meaningful genetic changes, those genetic changes will almost certainly be of our own design (my vote is for a built in jetpack)
I'm not really seeing the reasoning behind "evolution proves God exists". As it stands, it's extremely circular.
If you can elaborate on how exactly evolution needs an outside force to occur, that might help explain your view better.
no no no, sorry.
i dont believe that evolution HAS to be controlled by another being. i believe that our evolution, this world/earth's evolution has been designed/helped along.
That's great. You're certainly entitled to that belief. But you aren't doing a good job of conveying why this belief is well-thought-out to the rest of us.
Looking over these last couple of pages, I think you would benefit from reading Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene, as it would clear up almost all the misconceptions you've revealed therein to have about natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc.
I really cannot stress how much I recommend you read it.
I'll check it out, thanks
Ideally, we could put this thread on pause and let you take your time to read it, but of course the Internet waits for no man.
lets just say, that sin=not following the golden rule which that society lives by, so you wouldn't/COULDN'T function in that society. so, naturally, you would not be able to stay in that society.
So I take it you or someone you know has never been robbed?
i dont know where you are going with this...
you wouldnt be able to stay in that society because the "authorities" would weed you out and kick you out.
Ah, so your perfect society is an authoritarian police state where disobedience is met with exile?
And?
if you want to be part of a community that doesnt mistreat people and the people who do, are removed from that society, what would be wrong with that?
are you saying that would be wrong then? and that it would be better to allow people to rob others just because you dont want to offend the robber? the people in the "perfect society" still have the will to do what that want (even leave if they want), but they decide to always do what is right.
And evolution as it has been forever doesn't really apply to humans anymore.
If our species is still around long enough for meaningful genetic changes, those genetic changes will almost certainly be of our own design
No, it will still apply. Its just that the forces on the population as per natural selection are different now.
Edit: Everyone always wants the jetpack!
I think I'd like gills.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I'm not really seeing the reasoning behind "evolution proves God exists". As it stands, it's extremely circular.
If you can elaborate on how exactly evolution needs an outside force to occur, that might help explain your view better.
no no no, sorry.
i dont believe that evolution HAS to be controlled by another being. i believe that our evolution, this world/earth's evolution has been designed/helped along.
That's great. You're certainly entitled to that belief. But you aren't doing a good job of conveying why this belief is well-thought-out to the rest of us.
Looking over these last couple of pages, I think you would benefit from reading Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene, as it would clear up almost all the misconceptions you've revealed therein to have about natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc.
I really cannot stress how much I recommend you read it.
I'll check it out, thanks
Ideally, we could put this thread on pause and let you take your time to read it, but of course the Internet waits for no man.
lol
im reading the overview on wikipedia. i havent looked on scribd or anything as of yet. maybe they have it uploaded.
if you want to be part of a community that doesnt mistreat people and the people who do, are removed from that society, what would be wrong with that?
are you saying that would be wrong then? and that it would be better to allow people to rob others just because you dont want to offend the robber? the people in the "perfect society" still have the will to do what that want (even leave if they want), but they decide to always do what is right.
I'm sorry, are we discussing an imaginary society or reality?
Quid on
0
Garret Dorigan"Why can't I be DLC for UMvC3?"Registered Userregular
lets just say, that sin=not following the golden rule which that society lives by, so you wouldn't/COULDN'T function in that society. so, naturally, you would not be able to stay in that society.
So I take it you or someone you know has never been robbed?
i dont know where you are going with this...
you wouldnt be able to stay in that society because the "authorities" would weed you out and kick you out.
Ah, so your perfect society is an authoritarian police state where disobedience is met with exile?
And?
if you want to be part of a community that doesnt mistreat people and the people who do, are removed from that society, what would be wrong with that?
are you saying that would be wrong then? and that it would be better to allow people to rob others just because you dont want to offend the robber? the people in the "perfect society" still have the will to do what that want (even leave if they want), but they decide to always do what is right.
Human condition. Please realize that there are those out there that would view your 'utopia' as a slave state.
And evolution as it has been forever doesn't really apply to humans anymore.
If our species is still around long enough for meaningful genetic changes, those genetic changes will almost certainly be of our own design
No, it will still apply. Its just that the forces on the population as per natural selection are different now.
I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about five hundred, a thousand, or a hundred thousand years from now. Unless all of civilization collapses relatively soon and permanently, our knowledge of genetics will pretty much invalidate that whole pesky nature thing
lets just say, that sin=not following the golden rule which that society lives by, so you wouldn't/COULDN'T function in that society. so, naturally, you would not be able to stay in that society.
So I take it you or someone you know has never been robbed?
i dont know where you are going with this...
you wouldnt be able to stay in that society because the "authorities" would weed you out and kick you out.
Ah, so your perfect society is an authoritarian police state where disobedience is met with exile?
And?
if you want to be part of a community that doesnt mistreat people and the people who do, are removed from that society, what would be wrong with that?
are you saying that would be wrong then? and that it would be better to allow people to rob others just because you dont want to offend the robber? the people in the "perfect society" still have the will to do what that want (even leave if they want), but they decide to always do what is right.
You think the approriate punishment for robbery(and I'd presume this extends to all crimes) is to be banished from society to live alone in the wilderness?
Don't get me wrong, I had my car broken into, and while I wished a horrendous death upon whatever piece of trash took my golf clubs; I don't actually think, they should be sent off to die for stealing them.
Edit: Isn't there a Sci-fi story where the punishment for every crime is death, but its only enforced randomly? So the all seeing camera might watch you hack up your neighbor and do nothing, but steal a kit-kat and you might get the chair.
"Dawkins writes that gene combinations which help an organism to survive and reproduce tend to also improve the gene's own chances of being passed on and, as a result, frequently "successful" genes will also be beneficial to the organism."
alright. i see what you mean.
so it does make sense that, as of right now, there has been no evolutionary change. or, well, that there isnt one coming at the moment because our genes have already made it so possible to replicate and sustain that replication.
i also meant to respond to the fact that there is nothing really out there in the food chain trying to kill us.
but... about that. there are diseases and viruses and bacteria and whatnot. after a certain amount of time, couldnt the selfish gene (or
Andrew Brown has written:
"Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word—but "selfish" isn't it
then evolve to resist every virus, bacteria, and disease? eventually...?
wouldnt this be an evolutionary change? it might not be a huge one, but it would be a micro evolution (i hope thats the right term). that combined with the technological advances could result in the super human i've described.
And evolution as it has been forever doesn't really apply to humans anymore.
If our species is still around long enough for meaningful genetic changes, those genetic changes will almost certainly be of our own design
No, it will still apply. Its just that the forces on the population as per natural selection are different now.
I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about five hundred, a thousand, or a hundred thousand years from now. Unless all of civilization collapses relatively soon and permanently, our knowledge of genetics will pretty much invalidate that whole pesky nature thing
Access to that technology will be another factor in natural selection then. I don't imagine that such technology would actually touch every individual.
Could happen though. Who knows.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
All I'm saying is that I believe that because we are doing the things we do today (all the things we've talked about already) points towards the possibly that God is the pinnacle of the evolutionary cycle. I'm not saying that you have to believe it. But what we can do now, just makes it so much more real and possible that a God-like Being can/does exist.
To me, this isnt the theological or philosophical aspect of my belief system. Because its using science and not feelings/thoughts/ponderings/ to solidify the existence of God.
You seem to see evolution as the equivalent of a computer game's "level up", where the change makes you "better." That's not how evolution works. Evolution isn't about taking a "lowly" animal, like an ant or a worm, and "improving it" into something smarter or stronger. In evolutionary terms, ants and worms aren't lowly at all, they're very efficient, well-adapted, and good at surviving in their niches.
Being stronger or faster or even smarter does not necessarily mean "better" in terms of survival. The pheasant's strategy of hunkering down and sitting really, really still is an effective way for it to survive. Hiding under a rock works for slugs. Laying a billion eggs so that hopefully at least a couple of your babies will grow up works for lots of insects. So, no, I don't find the idea of God being a super-charged human very likely. You might just as well say God must be a giant microbe, the proof being the long term success and wide-spread habitats of microbes.
lets just say, that sin=not following the golden rule which that society lives by, so you wouldn't/COULDN'T function in that society. so, naturally, you would not be able to stay in that society.
So I take it you or someone you know has never been robbed?
i dont know where you are going with this...
you wouldnt be able to stay in that society because the "authorities" would weed you out and kick you out.
Ah, so your perfect society is an authoritarian police state where disobedience is met with exile?
And?
if you want to be part of a community that doesnt mistreat people and the people who do, are removed from that society, what would be wrong with that?
are you saying that would be wrong then? and that it would be better to allow people to rob others just because you dont want to offend the robber? the people in the "perfect society" still have the will to do what that want (even leave if they want), but they decide to always do what is right.
You think the approriate punishment for robbery(and I'd presume this extends to all crimes) is to be banished from society to live alone in the wilderness?
Don't get me wrong, I had my car broken into, and while I wished a horrendous death upon whatever piece of trash took my golf clubs; I don't actually think, they should be sent off to die for stealing them.
lol now we are getting into more of a purely religious discussion rather than the one that began this thread. and i dont believe this is the thread/place to discuss that. if you want, PM me
"Dawkins writes that gene combinations which help an organism to survive and reproduce tend to also improve the gene's own chances of being passed on and, as a result, frequently "successful" genes will also be beneficial to the organism."
alright. i see what you mean.
so it does make sense that, as of right now, there has been no evolutionary change. or, well, that there isnt one coming at the moment because our genes have already made it so possible to replicate and sustain that replication.
i also meant to respond to the fact that there is nothing really out there in the food chain trying to kill us.
but... about that. there are diseases and viruses and bacteria and whatnot. after a certain amount of time, couldnt the selfish gene (or
Andrew Brown has written:
"Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word—but "selfish" isn't it
then evolve to resist every virus, bacteria, and disease? eventually...?
wouldnt this be an evolutionary change? it might not be a huge one, but it would be a micro evolution (i hope thats the right term). that combined with the technological advances could result in the super human i've described.
That's false. I'm evolutionarily distinct from my parents. It's a process. You don't wake up one day and have gills.
moniker on
0
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
lol now we are getting into more of a purely religious discussion rather than the one that began this thread. and i dont believe this is the thread/place to discuss that. if you want, PM me
No. You included ethics as part of your reasoning for the existence of god.
Edit: Isn't there a Sci-fi story where the punishment for every crime is death, but its only enforced randomly? So the all seeing camera might watch you hack up your neighbor and do nothing, but steal a kit-kat and you might get the chair.
This would be called 'England' until the 1700's or so. Probably a lot of other places, too.
lol now we are getting into more of a purely religious discussion rather than the one that began this thread. and i dont believe this is the thread/place to discuss that. if you want, PM me
Yes, perhaps you could get back to the topic and actually demonstrate how evolution actually proves any god exists.
That people can actively affect its course is not proof.
All I'm saying is that I believe that because we are doing the things we do today (all the things we've talked about already) points towards the possibly that God is the pinnacle of the evolutionary cycle. I'm not saying that you have to believe it. But what we can do now, just makes it so much more real and possible that a God-like Being can/does exist.
To me, this isnt the theological or philosophical aspect of my belief system. Because its using science and not feelings/thoughts/ponderings/ to solidify the existence of God.
You seem to see evolution as the equivalent of a computer game's "level up", where the change makes you "better." That's not how evolution works. Evolution isn't about taking a "lowly" animal, like an ant or a worm, and "improving it" into something smarter or stronger. In evolutionary terms, ants and worms aren't lowly at all, they're very efficient, well-adapted, and good at surviving in their niches.
Being stronger or faster or even smarter does not necessarily mean "better" in terms of survival. The pheasant's strategy of hunkering down and sitting really, really still is an effective way for it to survive. Hiding under a rock works for slugs. Laying a billion eggs so that hopefully at least a couple of your babies will grow up works for lots of insects. So, no, I don't find the idea of God being a super-charged human very likely. You might just as well say God must be a giant microbe, the proof being the long term success and wide-spread habitats of microbes.
lol i see what you mean.
what i dont think i am portraying very well is that i believe the human species is different in its evolutionary path than the rest of the worlds inhabitants. i believe that because our intelligence has evolved from that of monkeys to using basic tools to flying space craft and stem cell research, it just seems to make sense that our evolutionary path, if it were to continue (and i believe it will), will eventually become what God is.
All I'm saying is that I believe that because we are doing the things we do today (all the things we've talked about already) points towards the possibly that God is the pinnacle of the evolutionary cycle. I'm not saying that you have to believe it. But what we can do now, just makes it so much more real and possible that a God-like Being can/does exist.
To me, this isnt the theological or philosophical aspect of my belief system. Because its using science and not feelings/thoughts/ponderings/ to solidify the existence of God.
You seem to see evolution as the equivalent of a computer game's "level up", where the change makes you "better." That's not how evolution works. Evolution isn't about taking a "lowly" animal, like an ant or a worm, and "improving it" into something smarter or stronger. In evolutionary terms, ants and worms aren't lowly at all, they're very efficient, well-adapted, and good at surviving in their niches.
Being stronger or faster or even smarter does not necessarily mean "better" in terms of survival. The pheasant's strategy of hunkering down and sitting really, really still is an effective way for it to survive. Hiding under a rock works for slugs. Laying a billion eggs so that hopefully at least a couple of your babies will grow up works for lots of insects. So, no, I don't find the idea of God being a super-charged human very likely. You might just as well say God must be a giant microbe, the proof being the long term success and wide-spread habitats of microbes.
lol i see what you mean.
what i dont think i am portraying very well is that i believe the human species is different in its evolutionary path than the rest of the worlds inhabitants. i believe that because our intelligence has evolved from that of monkeys to using basic tools to flying space craft and stem cell research, it just seems to make sense that our evolutionary path, if it were to continue (and i believe it will), will eventually become what God is.
"Dawkins writes that gene combinations which help an organism to survive and reproduce tend to also improve the gene's own chances of being passed on and, as a result, frequently "successful" genes will also be beneficial to the organism."
alright. i see what you mean.
so it does make sense that, as of right now, there has been no evolutionary change. or, well, that there isnt one coming at the moment because our genes have already made it so possible to replicate and sustain that replication.
i also meant to respond to the fact that there is nothing really out there in the food chain trying to kill us.
but... about that. there are diseases and viruses and bacteria and whatnot. after a certain amount of time, couldnt the selfish gene (or
Andrew Brown has written:
"Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word—but "selfish" isn't it
then evolve to resist every virus, bacteria, and disease? eventually...?
wouldnt this be an evolutionary change? it might not be a huge one, but it would be a micro evolution (i hope thats the right term). that combined with the technological advances could result in the super human i've described.
That's false. I'm evolutionarily distinct from my parents. It's a process. You don't wake up one day and have gills.
im not sure where it seems that i implied it would be an overnight or no-gilled-parents to gilled-children. because thats not what i'm saying.
im saying that over time, as we develop resistances and/or tolerances, could that be driven by that selfish gene?
what i dont think i am portraying very well is that i believe the human species is different in its evolutionary path than the rest of the worlds inhabitants. i believe that because our intelligence has evolved from that of monkeys to using basic tools to flying space craft and stem cell research, it just seems to make sense that our evolutionary path, if it were to continue (and i believe it will), will eventually become what God is.
Moniker called it right with the Adams quote.
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons.
Therefore clearly dolphins are the closest to god.
lol now we are getting into more of a purely religious discussion rather than the one that began this thread. and i dont believe this is the thread/place to discuss that. if you want, PM me
Yes, perhaps you could get back to the topic and actually demonstrate how evolution actually proves any god exists.
That people can actively affect its course is not proof.
lol now we are getting into more of a purely religious discussion rather than the one that began this thread. and i dont believe this is the thread/place to discuss that. if you want, PM me
No. You included ethics as part of your reasoning for the existence of god.
hrm. i didnt look at it that way, but i see why you are saying that i would be saying that ethics proves God exists. I was only trying to explain that the reason we are taught what we are taught is because its what He has learned. anyway, i see what you mean. it just wasnt the point of this thread.
"Dawkins writes that gene combinations which help an organism to survive and reproduce tend to also improve the gene's own chances of being passed on and, as a result, frequently "successful" genes will also be beneficial to the organism."
alright. i see what you mean.
so it does make sense that, as of right now, there has been no evolutionary change. or, well, that there isnt one coming at the moment because our genes have already made it so possible to replicate and sustain that replication.
i also meant to respond to the fact that there is nothing really out there in the food chain trying to kill us.
but... about that. there are diseases and viruses and bacteria and whatnot. after a certain amount of time, couldnt the selfish gene (or
Andrew Brown has written:
"Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word—but "selfish" isn't it
then evolve to resist every virus, bacteria, and disease? eventually...?
wouldnt this be an evolutionary change? it might not be a huge one, but it would be a micro evolution (i hope thats the right term). that combined with the technological advances could result in the super human i've described.
That's false. I'm evolutionarily distinct from my parents. It's a process. You don't wake up one day and have gills.
im not sure where it seems that i implied it would be an overnight or no-gilled-parents to gilled-children. because thats not what i'm saying.
im saying that over time, as we develop resistances and/or tolerances, could that be driven by that selfish gene?
Yes, it could. And the same selfish genes drive the bacteria, et al to find ways around the resistances and to not upset the tolerances.
The idea of the selfish gene is too complicated to hope for Wikipedia to accurately summerise without leaving out important distinctions. As Dawkins points out in the book, the term "selfish" is a description, the gene itself doesn't have conscious motivations.
"Dawkins writes that gene combinations which help an organism to survive and reproduce tend to also improve the gene's own chances of being passed on and, as a result, frequently "successful" genes will also be beneficial to the organism."
alright. i see what you mean.
so it does make sense that, as of right now, there has been no evolutionary change. or, well, that there isnt one coming at the moment because our genes have already made it so possible to replicate and sustain that replication.
i also meant to respond to the fact that there is nothing really out there in the food chain trying to kill us.
but... about that. there are diseases and viruses and bacteria and whatnot. after a certain amount of time, couldnt the selfish gene (or
Andrew Brown has written:
"Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word—but "selfish" isn't it
then evolve to resist every virus, bacteria, and disease? eventually...?
wouldnt this be an evolutionary change? it might not be a huge one, but it would be a micro evolution (i hope thats the right term). that combined with the technological advances could result in the super human i've described.
That's false. I'm evolutionarily distinct from my parents. It's a process. You don't wake up one day and have gills.
im not sure where it seems that i implied it would be an overnight or no-gilled-parents to gilled-children. because thats not what i'm saying.
im saying that over time, as we develop resistances and/or tolerances, could that be driven by that selfish gene?
It's mostly just driven by random mutation that happens to stick. I know you don't think it's an overnight thing, that was hyperbole, but evolution is continuous and has not stopped. I am different from my parents who were different from their parents on down the line to amoebas &c. When/if I have kids they'll also be a continuation of the evolutionary process.
"Dawkins writes that gene combinations which help an organism to survive and reproduce tend to also improve the gene's own chances of being passed on and, as a result, frequently "successful" genes will also be beneficial to the organism."
alright. i see what you mean.
so it does make sense that, as of right now, there has been no evolutionary change. or, well, that there isnt one coming at the moment because our genes have already made it so possible to replicate and sustain that replication.
i also meant to respond to the fact that there is nothing really out there in the food chain trying to kill us.
but... about that. there are diseases and viruses and bacteria and whatnot. after a certain amount of time, couldnt the selfish gene (or
Andrew Brown has written:
"Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word—but "selfish" isn't it
then evolve to resist every virus, bacteria, and disease? eventually...?
wouldnt this be an evolutionary change? it might not be a huge one, but it would be a micro evolution (i hope thats the right term). that combined with the technological advances could result in the super human i've described.
That's false. I'm evolutionarily distinct from my parents. It's a process. You don't wake up one day and have gills.
im not sure where it seems that i implied it would be an overnight or no-gilled-parents to gilled-children. because thats not what i'm saying.
im saying that over time, as we develop resistances and/or tolerances, could that be driven by that selfish gene?
Yes, it could. And the same selfish genes drive the bacteria, et al to find ways around the resistances and to not upset the tolerances.
The idea of the selfish gene is too complicated to hope for Wikipedia to accurately summerise without leaving out important distinctions. As Dawkins points out in the book, the term "selfish" is a description, the gene itself doesn't have conscious motivations.
ill see if the base library has this book. i have a lot of "free" time in my job at the moment.
Lachoneus on
"No women. No kids."
0
Garret Dorigan"Why can't I be DLC for UMvC3?"Registered Userregular
lol now we are getting into more of a purely religious discussion rather than the one that began this thread. and i dont believe this is the thread/place to discuss that. if you want, PM me
Yes, perhaps you could get back to the topic and actually demonstrate how evolution actually proves any god exists.
That people can actively affect its course is not proof.
lol now we are getting into more of a purely religious discussion rather than the one that began this thread. and i dont believe this is the thread/place to discuss that. if you want, PM me
No. You included ethics as part of your reasoning for the existence of god.
hrm. i didnt look at it that way, but i see why you are saying that i would be saying that ethics proves God exists. I was only trying to explain that the reason we are taught what we are taught is because its what He has learned. anyway, i see what you mean. it just wasnt the point of this thread.
It seems to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you are falling into the trap of non-corporeal belief versus logical thinking. That's usually where the topic is going when I see answers filled with esoterism.
lol now we are getting into more of a purely religious discussion rather than the one that began this thread. and i dont believe this is the thread/place to discuss that. if you want, PM me
Yes, perhaps you could get back to the topic and actually demonstrate how evolution actually proves any god exists.
That people can actively affect its course is not proof.
why not?
It follows no logic whatsoever.
There are lots of things humans can affect.
For instance: Humans can now destroy civilizations in an instant.
In the bible, one of thousands of religious texts, so could God.
Therefore nukes are proof the old testament is literally true.
All I'm saying is that I believe that because we are doing the things we do today (all the things we've talked about already) points towards the possibly that God is the pinnacle of the evolutionary cycle. I'm not saying that you have to believe it. But what we can do now, just makes it so much more real and possible that a God-like Being can/does exist.
To me, this isnt the theological or philosophical aspect of my belief system. Because its using science and not feelings/thoughts/ponderings/ to solidify the existence of God.
You seem to see evolution as the equivalent of a computer game's "level up", where the change makes you "better." That's not how evolution works. Evolution isn't about taking a "lowly" animal, like an ant or a worm, and "improving it" into something smarter or stronger. In evolutionary terms, ants and worms aren't lowly at all, they're very efficient, well-adapted, and good at surviving in their niches.
Being stronger or faster or even smarter does not necessarily mean "better" in terms of survival. The pheasant's strategy of hunkering down and sitting really, really still is an effective way for it to survive. Hiding under a rock works for slugs. Laying a billion eggs so that hopefully at least a couple of your babies will grow up works for lots of insects. So, no, I don't find the idea of God being a super-charged human very likely. You might just as well say God must be a giant microbe, the proof being the long term success and wide-spread habitats of microbes.
lol i see what you mean.
what i dont think i am portraying very well is that i believe the human species is different in its evolutionary path than the rest of the worlds inhabitants. i believe that because our intelligence has evolved from that of monkeys to using basic tools to flying space craft and stem cell research, it just seems to make sense that our evolutionary path, if it were to continue (and i believe it will), will eventually become what God is.
People didn't actually evolve from monkeys, though. It's been a long, long time since I studied this (my graduate and undergrad degress are both in English and Linguistics...), but we have a common ancestor with monkeys as opposed to being actually evolved from monkeys.
It kind of seems to me like you are picking and choosing random "facts" (some of which aren't actually true) to support this notion that evolution leads to god.
"Dawkins writes that gene combinations which help an organism to survive and reproduce tend to also improve the gene's own chances of being passed on and, as a result, frequently "successful" genes will also be beneficial to the organism."
alright. i see what you mean.
so it does make sense that, as of right now, there has been no evolutionary change. or, well, that there isnt one coming at the moment because our genes have already made it so possible to replicate and sustain that replication.
i also meant to respond to the fact that there is nothing really out there in the food chain trying to kill us.
but... about that. there are diseases and viruses and bacteria and whatnot. after a certain amount of time, couldnt the selfish gene (or
Andrew Brown has written:
"Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word—but "selfish" isn't it
then evolve to resist every virus, bacteria, and disease? eventually...?
wouldnt this be an evolutionary change? it might not be a huge one, but it would be a micro evolution (i hope thats the right term). that combined with the technological advances could result in the super human i've described.
That's false. I'm evolutionarily distinct from my parents. It's a process. You don't wake up one day and have gills.
im not sure where it seems that i implied it would be an overnight or no-gilled-parents to gilled-children. because thats not what i'm saying.
im saying that over time, as we develop resistances and/or tolerances, could that be driven by that selfish gene?
It's mostly just driven by random mutation that happens to stick. I know you don't think it's an overnight thing, that was hyperbole, but evolution is continuous and has not stopped. I am different from my parents who were different from their parents on down the line to amoebas &c. When/if I have kids they'll also be a continuation of the evolutionary process.
gotcha.
also quid. thats why i included technology. with technological advances and the continually evolving humans, couldnt the outcome eventually be an extremely knowledgeable society?
Lachoneus on
"No women. No kids."
0
Garret Dorigan"Why can't I be DLC for UMvC3?"Registered Userregular
"Dawkins writes that gene combinations which help an organism to survive and reproduce tend to also improve the gene's own chances of being passed on and, as a result, frequently "successful" genes will also be beneficial to the organism."
alright. i see what you mean.
so it does make sense that, as of right now, there has been no evolutionary change. or, well, that there isnt one coming at the moment because our genes have already made it so possible to replicate and sustain that replication.
i also meant to respond to the fact that there is nothing really out there in the food chain trying to kill us.
but... about that. there are diseases and viruses and bacteria and whatnot. after a certain amount of time, couldnt the selfish gene (or
Andrew Brown has written:
"Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word—but "selfish" isn't it
then evolve to resist every virus, bacteria, and disease? eventually...?
wouldnt this be an evolutionary change? it might not be a huge one, but it would be a micro evolution (i hope thats the right term). that combined with the technological advances could result in the super human i've described.
That's false. I'm evolutionarily distinct from my parents. It's a process. You don't wake up one day and have gills.
im not sure where it seems that i implied it would be an overnight or no-gilled-parents to gilled-children. because thats not what i'm saying.
im saying that over time, as we develop resistances and/or tolerances, could that be driven by that selfish gene?
It's mostly just driven by random mutation that happens to stick. I know you don't think it's an overnight thing, that was hyperbole, but evolution is continuous and has not stopped. I am different from my parents who were different from their parents on down the line to amoebas &c. When/if I have kids they'll also be a continuation of the evolutionary process.
gotcha.
also quid. thats why i included technology. with technological advances and the continually evolving humans, couldnt the outcome eventually be an extremely knowledgeable society?
The outcome could also be a society of gibbering idiots (and some would say that is the reality of today), to play devil's advocate.
All I'm saying is that I believe that because we are doing the things we do today (all the things we've talked about already) points towards the possibly that God is the pinnacle of the evolutionary cycle. I'm not saying that you have to believe it. But what we can do now, just makes it so much more real and possible that a God-like Being can/does exist.
To me, this isnt the theological or philosophical aspect of my belief system. Because its using science and not feelings/thoughts/ponderings/ to solidify the existence of God.
You seem to see evolution as the equivalent of a computer game's "level up", where the change makes you "better." That's not how evolution works. Evolution isn't about taking a "lowly" animal, like an ant or a worm, and "improving it" into something smarter or stronger. In evolutionary terms, ants and worms aren't lowly at all, they're very efficient, well-adapted, and good at surviving in their niches.
Being stronger or faster or even smarter does not necessarily mean "better" in terms of survival. The pheasant's strategy of hunkering down and sitting really, really still is an effective way for it to survive. Hiding under a rock works for slugs. Laying a billion eggs so that hopefully at least a couple of your babies will grow up works for lots of insects. So, no, I don't find the idea of God being a super-charged human very likely. You might just as well say God must be a giant microbe, the proof being the long term success and wide-spread habitats of microbes.
lol i see what you mean.
what i dont think i am portraying very well is that i believe the human species is different in its evolutionary path than the rest of the worlds inhabitants. i believe that because our intelligence has evolved from that of monkeys to using basic tools to flying space craft and stem cell research, it just seems to make sense that our evolutionary path, if it were to continue (and i believe it will), will eventually become what God is.
Kill all the humans off and give chimps a million years and they'd probably replace us. They use tools as weapons(This one, would break concrete off his enclosures walls and store it away for future use against zoo patrons), engage in war for territory. , have sex for pleasure, etc
You are basically looking at a tiny sliver of homo sapien history, 100,000 years ago we weren't substantially different from chimps, and for all you know 100 years from now, we'll have nuked/germed ourselves into oblivion.
also quid. thats why i included technology. with technological advances and the continually evolving humans, couldnt the outcome eventually be an extremely knowledgeable society?
It could also be an extremely nuked planet and dead humans!
Hence why people are asking for proof beyond humans affect X therefore god.
also quid. thats why i included technology. with technological advances and the continually evolving humans, couldnt the outcome eventually be an extremely knowledgeable society?
Yes, but that has nothing to do with biology or evolution. It'd be the result of conscious efforts to expand international liberalism and equality maximizing reforms in different international, national, and sub-national institutions in order to create a global Rawlsian society by conscious human beings dedicating their blood, sweat, and tears. Not just from sexin' people up and having babies.
All I'm saying is that I believe that because we are doing the things we do today (all the things we've talked about already) points towards the possibly that God is the pinnacle of the evolutionary cycle. I'm not saying that you have to believe it. But what we can do now, just makes it so much more real and possible that a God-like Being can/does exist.
To me, this isnt the theological or philosophical aspect of my belief system. Because its using science and not feelings/thoughts/ponderings/ to solidify the existence of God.
You seem to see evolution as the equivalent of a computer game's "level up", where the change makes you "better." That's not how evolution works. Evolution isn't about taking a "lowly" animal, like an ant or a worm, and "improving it" into something smarter or stronger. In evolutionary terms, ants and worms aren't lowly at all, they're very efficient, well-adapted, and good at surviving in their niches.
Being stronger or faster or even smarter does not necessarily mean "better" in terms of survival. The pheasant's strategy of hunkering down and sitting really, really still is an effective way for it to survive. Hiding under a rock works for slugs. Laying a billion eggs so that hopefully at least a couple of your babies will grow up works for lots of insects. So, no, I don't find the idea of God being a super-charged human very likely. You might just as well say God must be a giant microbe, the proof being the long term success and wide-spread habitats of microbes.
lol i see what you mean.
what i dont think i am portraying very well is that i believe the human species is different in its evolutionary path than the rest of the worlds inhabitants. i believe that because our intelligence has evolved from that of monkeys to using basic tools to flying space craft and stem cell research, it just seems to make sense that our evolutionary path, if it were to continue (and i believe it will), will eventually become what God is.
People didn't actually evolve from monkeys, though. It's been a long, long time since I studied this (my graduate and undergrad degress are both in English and Linguistics...), but we have a common ancestor with monkeys as opposed to being actually evolved from monkeys.
It kind of seems to me like you are picking and choosing random "facts" (some of which aren't actually true) to support this notion that evolution leads to god.
sorry i said monkeys. it still doesnt change what i am saying.
im not trying to pick and choose from facts. im still learning.
but even all the things im learning and the points that are being made, for me, don't prove me wrong. in fact, it just bolsters my conviction. you can think im crazy, niave, whatever. but the science of evolution, for me doesnt disprove God. And, on top of it, I believe in evolution. I may not understand it fully, but what I am learning and have learned doesnt make me disbelieve.
Posts
I'll check it out, thanks
Except that they don't always find the criminal. In fact, for petty crime they almost never do.
And there's all the exceptions including people who manage to get away with the big crimes too.
Ah, so your perfect society is an authoritarian police state where disobedience is met with exile?
No, it doesn't. It's just as real and possible as it was when the Pope's were fighting over Apostolic succession.
It does none of those things because it is a theological or philosophical aspect of your belief system and not in any way science. Microwavable hot pockets do not prove the existence of God/gods. If anything they might point to the absence of a truly just and loving God/gods.
I would agree if it weren't for beer.
I think that he is intoning the fact that no society is perfect, and that there are those that fall thru the cracks and those that work the system outside of the mean dynamic.
But, in a similar way to my own agnostic 'beliefs', I don't believe that something that could be (note the stress on that, and understand accordingly that this is not meant in any sort of derisive way) viewed as didactic will have the response that you had hoped for.
And evolution as it has been forever doesn't really apply to humans anymore.
If our species is still around long enough for meaningful genetic changes, those genetic changes will almost certainly be of our own design (my vote is for a built in jetpack)
Ideally, we could put this thread on pause and let you take your time to read it, but of course the Internet waits for no man.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
And?
if you want to be part of a community that doesnt mistreat people and the people who do, are removed from that society, what would be wrong with that?
are you saying that would be wrong then? and that it would be better to allow people to rob others just because you dont want to offend the robber? the people in the "perfect society" still have the will to do what that want (even leave if they want), but they decide to always do what is right.
No, it will still apply. Its just that the forces on the population as per natural selection are different now.
Edit: Everyone always wants the jetpack!
I think I'd like gills.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
lol
im reading the overview on wikipedia. i havent looked on scribd or anything as of yet. maybe they have it uploaded.
I'm sorry, are we discussing an imaginary society or reality?
Human condition. Please realize that there are those out there that would view your 'utopia' as a slave state.
I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about five hundred, a thousand, or a hundred thousand years from now. Unless all of civilization collapses relatively soon and permanently, our knowledge of genetics will pretty much invalidate that whole pesky nature thing
You think the approriate punishment for robbery(and I'd presume this extends to all crimes) is to be banished from society to live alone in the wilderness?
Don't get me wrong, I had my car broken into, and while I wished a horrendous death upon whatever piece of trash took my golf clubs; I don't actually think, they should be sent off to die for stealing them.
Edit: Isn't there a Sci-fi story where the punishment for every crime is death, but its only enforced randomly? So the all seeing camera might watch you hack up your neighbor and do nothing, but steal a kit-kat and you might get the chair.
alright. i see what you mean.
so it does make sense that, as of right now, there has been no evolutionary change. or, well, that there isnt one coming at the moment because our genes have already made it so possible to replicate and sustain that replication.
i also meant to respond to the fact that there is nothing really out there in the food chain trying to kill us.
but... about that. there are diseases and viruses and bacteria and whatnot. after a certain amount of time, couldnt the selfish gene (or
"Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word—but "selfish" isn't it
wouldnt this be an evolutionary change? it might not be a huge one, but it would be a micro evolution (i hope thats the right term). that combined with the technological advances could result in the super human i've described.
Access to that technology will be another factor in natural selection then. I don't imagine that such technology would actually touch every individual.
Could happen though. Who knows.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
You seem to see evolution as the equivalent of a computer game's "level up", where the change makes you "better." That's not how evolution works. Evolution isn't about taking a "lowly" animal, like an ant or a worm, and "improving it" into something smarter or stronger. In evolutionary terms, ants and worms aren't lowly at all, they're very efficient, well-adapted, and good at surviving in their niches.
Being stronger or faster or even smarter does not necessarily mean "better" in terms of survival. The pheasant's strategy of hunkering down and sitting really, really still is an effective way for it to survive. Hiding under a rock works for slugs. Laying a billion eggs so that hopefully at least a couple of your babies will grow up works for lots of insects. So, no, I don't find the idea of God being a super-charged human very likely. You might just as well say God must be a giant microbe, the proof being the long term success and wide-spread habitats of microbes.
lol now we are getting into more of a purely religious discussion rather than the one that began this thread. and i dont believe this is the thread/place to discuss that. if you want, PM me
That's false. I'm evolutionarily distinct from my parents. It's a process. You don't wake up one day and have gills.
No. You included ethics as part of your reasoning for the existence of god.
This would be called 'England' until the 1700's or so. Probably a lot of other places, too.
Yes, perhaps you could get back to the topic and actually demonstrate how evolution actually proves any god exists.
That people can actively affect its course is not proof.
lol i see what you mean.
what i dont think i am portraying very well is that i believe the human species is different in its evolutionary path than the rest of the worlds inhabitants. i believe that because our intelligence has evolved from that of monkeys to using basic tools to flying space craft and stem cell research, it just seems to make sense that our evolutionary path, if it were to continue (and i believe it will), will eventually become what God is.
Which God?
im not sure where it seems that i implied it would be an overnight or no-gilled-parents to gilled-children. because thats not what i'm saying.
im saying that over time, as we develop resistances and/or tolerances, could that be driven by that selfish gene?
Moniker called it right with the Adams quote.
Therefore clearly dolphins are the closest to god.
why not?
hrm. i didnt look at it that way, but i see why you are saying that i would be saying that ethics proves God exists. I was only trying to explain that the reason we are taught what we are taught is because its what He has learned. anyway, i see what you mean. it just wasnt the point of this thread.
Yes, it could. And the same selfish genes drive the bacteria, et al to find ways around the resistances and to not upset the tolerances.
The idea of the selfish gene is too complicated to hope for Wikipedia to accurately summerise without leaving out important distinctions. As Dawkins points out in the book, the term "selfish" is a description, the gene itself doesn't have conscious motivations.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It's mostly just driven by random mutation that happens to stick. I know you don't think it's an overnight thing, that was hyperbole, but evolution is continuous and has not stopped. I am different from my parents who were different from their parents on down the line to amoebas &c. When/if I have kids they'll also be a continuation of the evolutionary process.
ill see if the base library has this book. i have a lot of "free" time in my job at the moment.
It seems to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you are falling into the trap of non-corporeal belief versus logical thinking. That's usually where the topic is going when I see answers filled with esoterism.
It follows no logic whatsoever.
There are lots of things humans can affect.
For instance: Humans can now destroy civilizations in an instant.
In the bible, one of thousands of religious texts, so could God.
Therefore nukes are proof the old testament is literally true.
People didn't actually evolve from monkeys, though. It's been a long, long time since I studied this (my graduate and undergrad degress are both in English and Linguistics...), but we have a common ancestor with monkeys as opposed to being actually evolved from monkeys.
It kind of seems to me like you are picking and choosing random "facts" (some of which aren't actually true) to support this notion that evolution leads to god.
gotcha.
also quid. thats why i included technology. with technological advances and the continually evolving humans, couldnt the outcome eventually be an extremely knowledgeable society?
The outcome could also be a society of gibbering idiots (and some would say that is the reality of today), to play devil's advocate.
Kill all the humans off and give chimps a million years and they'd probably replace us. They use tools as weapons(This one, would break concrete off his enclosures walls and store it away for future use against zoo patrons), engage in war for territory. , have sex for pleasure, etc
You are basically looking at a tiny sliver of homo sapien history, 100,000 years ago we weren't substantially different from chimps, and for all you know 100 years from now, we'll have nuked/germed ourselves into oblivion.
It could also be an extremely nuked planet and dead humans!
Hence why people are asking for proof beyond humans affect X therefore god.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with biology or evolution. It'd be the result of conscious efforts to expand international liberalism and equality maximizing reforms in different international, national, and sub-national institutions in order to create a global Rawlsian society by conscious human beings dedicating their blood, sweat, and tears. Not just from sexin' people up and having babies.
sorry i said monkeys. it still doesnt change what i am saying.
im not trying to pick and choose from facts. im still learning.
but even all the things im learning and the points that are being made, for me, don't prove me wrong. in fact, it just bolsters my conviction. you can think im crazy, niave, whatever. but the science of evolution, for me doesnt disprove God. And, on top of it, I believe in evolution. I may not understand it fully, but what I am learning and have learned doesnt make me disbelieve.