The Evolution of Evolution

Palomar · 2005-08-17 15:01:59

There seems to be an opinion floating around among non-religious people that religious people don't generally accept the fundamental claim of the evolution of species. I'd previously thought that charming opinion was limited only to fundamentalists. What an odd similarity between the two...

*If you've had me in mind while making this comment: No.

I am fully aware that some religious people can and do believe in evolution (or a modified version of it; whichever the case may be). I pointed out that one person here believes in God (which doesn't necessarily make him "religious" btw) while also being more willing to embrace pure evolution than I myself do (an agnostic).

I'm more than familiar with religion and the differences (often vast) within it/them and its/their adherents.

Evolution hasn't stopped. And I'm a religious person. These are all consistent statements.

Fine.

As for Cobra's statement pertaining to achieving Godhood: I see where he's coming from with it, though my approach/viewpoint is differently angled.

--Cindy

C M Edwards · 2005-08-17 15:51:43

*If you've had me in mind while making this comment: No.

No, I didn't have you in mind, Cindy. Kinda disappointing though. I wish someone here were guilty of that annoying tresspass so I could just blame it on some scapegoat and be done with it.

"I blame..." ( *lifts finger ominously and looks around for convenient pariah* )

If only.

As for Cobra's statement pertaining to achieving Godhood: I see where he's coming from with it, though my approach/viewpoint is differently angled.
--Cindy

Me too, although I can't get beyond the quite valid observation that a dog tick is more highly evolved than a dog. Just because we're already driving our own evolution doesn't mean we're going anywhere.

reddragon · 2005-08-17 17:33:02

*Has been on my mind, might as well say it:
Doesn't it seem that believing entirely in evolution has thwarted us? The 18th century Enlightenment was a heady period of nearly unbounded potential and promise. Sure, certain elements of that philosophical period were overly optimistic, but most of its philosophes were logical and realistic (for the time); not all got carried away with optimism.
Along comes Darwin...and it seems we've fallen on our faces. In some respects (politics aside), the Apollo Program was borne of the Enlightenment "can-do" spirit.
The overall human reaction to evolution seems to be: "This is all we can ever be." (Fatalistic, why bother?) Apathy, stasis, "who cares?" seems to have followed as a result.
The non-evolutionary "explanations" of our existance do, despite their inherent flaws (and ignoring the fossil record), seem to continue to hold out the concept of "this isn't all that we are; we can be better" (self-determination).

I certainly like a lot about the enlightenment spirit, but I don't think that Darwin killed it or that a belief in evolution has slowed human advancement. The enlightenment was mostly before Darwin's time, I think, and yet to come were the revolutionizing inventions of the late 19th and early 20th century (electricity, automobiles, telegraphs, and great advances in railroads, steam ships, and industrial technology, among many other things) as well as those of the later 20th century (computers, spacecraft, and lots more). Of course, at first few people beleived Darwin's theory and even now many don't. But advancement, in technology at least, has been mostly brought about by scientists who tend to use reason and logic and who are more likely to accept evolution than other segments of the population. It seems to me that those in modern times who carry on enlightenment ideas (Carl Sagan comes to mind) tend to be those who accept evolution. Finally, for the human reaction to evolution, many people, as responses on this board indicate, react not with fatalism but with empowerment (e.g. Cobra's "Rather than being merely a reflection of God we can through our own toil and genius become Gods.")

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-18 01:42:56

Cindy:-

At least one person here (not I) believes in God while embracing evolution.

I guess the emphasis here could fairly be placed on the "at least" part of that sentence (?). I believe even the Catholic Church, not renowned for its progressive tendencies, has accepted biological evolution, more or less. And I'm pretty sure most of the protestant groups have too.

I happen to believe in God, myself, but there's no doubt in my mind that species evolve into other species and have been doing so for a very long time. I see no reason to draw the line with human beings, just because humans are us and we have to be somehow separate and special in the way we came to be. But I can understand why so many people draw comfort from thinking that way.

I look at Christian fundamentalism, which is synonymous with creationism and 'intelligent design' as far as I can tell, and I see a devious use of this debate we're having here. The creationists like to insinuate that you either believe in God (as they see God) or you 'believe' in biological evolution.
-- This artificial dichotomy is wrong in two ways:
-- Firstly, you can't compare creationism with evolution because, while you can believe in creationism, you can only say of evolution that it's the best summary of all the information we have available at the present time and is subject to modification as new data are gathered. The two entities are 'apples and oranges' in the sense that the former, creationism, starts with the incontestable conclusion that God created everything, more or less as is, in 6 days about 6000 years ago, and then starts looking for evidence to support the idea. (Incidentally, whatever evidence creationists gather will make no difference to their conclusion, which was decided upon, nay decreed, at the outset!). With evolution, large amounts of data about the natural world were gathered first and the notion of evolution was later devised as a hypothesis to explain those data. Evolution became a stronger and stronger hypothesis until it attained the status of a theory. And now, it's as close to a fact as any achievement of the scientific method can get .. though it is still subject to modification, or even complete falsification, if new observations demand it. So you cannot treat creationism and evolution as though they can be legitimately compared - because they can't!
-- Secondly, it's perfectly possible to acknowledge evolution and accept its validity as an extraordinarily successful and well established scientific explanation of the world around us, without relinquishing the reasonableness of believing in God. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, however much the creationists try to make it seem so for their own purposes.

While accepting that religion and science can co-exist perfectly well, what's important is that we don't muddle them up! Science is the sharpest tool we have for dissecting the mysteries of this incredible universe we inhabit; religion is what comforts us in the cold vastness and loneliness of that universe.
-- If, some day, science accumulates enough knowledge to cast light on the existence or otherwise of a Supreme Being, and perhaps the reason for our own existence, that will be a wonderful thing - to know the mind of God or to know there is no God. But that confluence of science and religion, if it ever does occur, must of necessity be accidental. Science doesn't exist to look for God.
-- But neither does it deny God's existence .. at least not yet!

SpaceNut · 2005-08-22 05:12:35

But then again the chance events of the past that has tried to snuff out life on many ocassions could have also been the catalyst for lifes acidently.

Then again some might say we are playing GOD when we experiment with genes splicing, dna or rna replication and other active use of living and non living introduction into ourselves.

Genetic material offers potential SARS treatment

Small fragments of genetic material that can silence specific genes are showing promise in battling the deadly severe acute respiratory syndrome.
Researchers reported Sunday that snippets called interfering RNA can reduce an existing infection in monkeys and help protect them from new ones.
RNA, or ribonucleic acid, transmits information from the DNA that carries the blueprint of life in cells. The small fragments, called siRNA, can be tailored to silence specific genes. Scientists are investigating this use of RNA in hopes it can help with a variety of medical conditions.

Wide implications to using the technology:

Many scientists have thought two types of immune cell produced in the bone marrow — B cells and T cells — are needed to prime the immune system.
The cancer researchers found that after a treatment that depletes B cells, they could follow with an experimental vaccine that boosts T-cell immune response. The treatment produced an 89% survival rate at 46 months in 26 patients with mantle cell lymphoma, which is difficult to control.

Then we have the experimentation with living organism to see how the react to infection:
[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8996253/]Student infects real worm with real virus
Will allow researchers to study how they spread in humans[/url]

Of course this work is important as well when seeking cures too.

Then we have the question of Evolution or not Evolution but divine intervention.
But man it would seem is learning how to be the intervener.
[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9005023/]Researchers creating life from scratch
‘Synthetic biologists’ build with one genetic molecule at a time[/url]

They're called "synthetic biologists" and they boldly claim the ability to make never-before-seen living things, one genetic molecule at a time.
They're mixing, matching and stacking DNA's chemical components like microscopic Lego blocks in an effort to make biologically based computers, medicines and alternative energy sources.

With a little tinkering we have been able to make them make insulin and other stuff.

Then again there are those that say we should not do these things even if they are for the greater good.

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9034403/]Skin cells ‘reprogrammed’ to stem cells
Scientists’ work could clear moral hurdle to embryonic research[/url]

Far reaching research once we over come where the stems cells come from.

But with all this there can alsways be a negative for if we can tinker for good someone will always do the same for evil intent. There is already some fear of bio-terror and with these technologies we could be in as much trouble by these radicals that wish to wage war.

Trebuchet · 2005-08-22 07:10:07

Well, IMHO, the Bible's probably a proponent of (responsible!) genetic engineering. Consider the bit where Jesus is going on about how if your eye gets you in trouble, pluck it out, better to enter heaven half-blind than tossed in hell whole. The next fundy type that gets on my case about GM technologies, I want to tell them that it's better to go into heaven genetically engineered, than tossed into hell 100% organic. We aren't desecrating the temple that is our body, we're bringing it up to code.

John Creighton · 2005-08-22 07:42:07

We aren't desecrating the temple that is our body, we're bringing it up to code.

I like it.

Dook · 2005-08-23 03:19:19

The difference in DNA (not including non repeating segments) from one human to another is 99.8%. The difference in DNA from a human to a chimpanzee is 98% so 1.8% is all that makes us different.

Don't be insulted. Be happy there is any life at all.

The most striking thing I see in all of your posts is a human centered view of the universe. You can’t fathom that God would allow such a great being as you to have evolved from such a lowly thing as an ape. It’s an idea promoted for centuries by religion. The human designed universe instead of a God designed one. The earth is not the center of the universe. We are average, accept it.

If you truly believe in a Creator of the universe then you accept it the way it is because that’s the way the Creator wanted it to be. DNA forming life and evolving into sentient beings is smart because it takes care of itself. Survival of the fittest, no constant monitoring, throwing switches, pushing levers. How could anyone possibly keep tabs on every life form in a universe with trillions of planets?

Shaun: How do we measure a day? By the apparent movement of the sun and the moon across the sky. Go back and read Genesis again. At the end of the first day there was no sun or moon, so I ask you how long was it really? And how long the second day?

How would an intelligent (angel) being deliver the information in the bible about the origins of the universe to a human with limited intellect? He would have no choice but to put it in words that the human can understand. We are still struggling to understand how all of the matter in the universe came from a singularity and that early stars formed heavier elements then went supernova to spread them across the universe.

Spacenut: We are not playing God by learning about the universe (gene splicing). After all, God isn’t even playing God.

Palomar · 2005-08-23 12:26:34

The difference in DNA (not including non repeating segments) from one human to another is 99.8%. The difference in DNA from a human to a chimpanzee is 98% so 1.8% is all that makes us different.
Don't be insulted. Be happy there is any life at all.

*I see your point about being happy there -is- life. And I'm holding out for that 1.8%. But it is insulting, IMO. Chimps are smelly and hairy and ...

What does this study REALLY prove?

Aren't they anthropomorphosizing? How does it "prove" chimps bow to social pressure? If anything, it's the old "monkey see, monkey do" situation. I don't discern any "evidence" that the other chimps aren't following the 2 chimps involved in the study for any reason other than simple learned behavior. That's conformity but it doesn't imply the chimp is feeling socially pressured to do so.

I see a distinct difference between this article's example and girls becoming anorexic or bulimic in order to avoid "becoming fat" and thereby avoiding negative social consequences.

--Cindy

John Creighton · 2005-08-23 13:39:49

Palomar wrote:

*I see your point about being happy there -is- life. And I'm holding out for that 1.8%. But it is insulting, IMO. Chimps are smelly and hairy and ...
[/url]
I think you are showing an over inflated sense of self importance. Had that comment been about another human race I am sure there would be a strong reaction by others about it. Ever here the Asian joke about white people:
Why are white men so Harry?
Ans:
because they are less evolved.
Does that joke offend anyone? Had it been about a minority would it. However chimps smell does not make them better or worse it just makes them different. It is only another attribute which you arbitrary pick out as something different so you can say you are better then them. For all you know you may stink to them. I have never smelled a chimp but If there order was unpleasant I am sure they could do the same things people do to make there aroma more pleasant to your tastes.
Speaking about physical attributes, we are much weaker and slower then a gorilla. Does that imply we are inferior. Now this all said I am not a deep animal lover and you are so how is it I end up arguing this side and you end up arguing the other side. P.S. cindy I am going to have to try some fluffy bunnies for supper sometime.

Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]

Trebuchet · 2005-08-23 19:40:59

Actually, the notion about different races being 'evolved' more or less is silly. I'm no PC policeman; I've pretty well established my credentials in the jackboot section of the US poltical spectrum. But in the same way that gorillas, chimps, and humans all probably look very different from their common ancestor, modern human races have evolved in all sorts of different ways and in all directions... sometimes with things popping up in parallel that you wouldn't expect (blond hair, for instance, it popped up independently in Europe and among Australian Aborigines).

Actually, the theory has been advanced that apart from a few basic things like skin color and such, most of the differences are probably sexually selected, in other words, there are lots of redheads in Ireland because some proto-Celtic men really liked redheads, etc, and the differences among various ethnicities a matter of 'genetic fashion', so to speak.

C M Edwards · 2005-08-24 09:59:11

Actually, the theory has been advanced that apart from a few basic things like skin color and such, most of the differences are probably sexually selected, in other words, there are lots of redheads in Ireland because some proto-Celtic men really liked redheads, etc, and the differences among various ethnicities a matter of 'genetic fashion', so to speak.

Hmm... I wonder what traits would be sexually selected for on Mars?

Palomar · 2005-08-24 10:16:05

*Speaking of blonde-haired folks: I no longer associate whites with blonde hair first. Having lived in a predominantly (80+%) Hispanic/Latino population for the past 13 years, what now strikes me as the most prevalent white feature is red hair or auburn. Lots of reddish highlights in white actors in so many movies, TV shows, etc.

When I resided in the Midwest (born and raised), I automatically thought "blonde" as synonymous with whites (I was blonde until age 6). But red/auburn is much more prevalent than I'd previously realized. Interesting how the "picture" changes when you've stepped away somewhat...

--Cindy

Grypd · 2005-08-24 13:44:23

Actually one of the reasons that red heads are common in both Ireland and Scotland is that a red haired women though more at risk of melanoma actually has benefits when it comes down to giving birth and other ailments. In redheaded women the gene melanocortin-1 gives redheads a higher pain threshold than other colour of hair women.

It was always thought that redheads had a less resistance to pain but what in fact was happening was that there increased pain protection masked the anaesthetic so that they need more to feel less pain.

From a genetic benefit Women are less pained at giving birth if they are red heads so they are more likely to have more children and so the gene is passed on.

Oh incidentally men get nothing from being redheads apart from insults from the likes of me :twisted:

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-25 06:06:15

In redheaded women the gene melanocortin-1 gives redheads a higher pain threshold than other colour of hair women.

I did not know that.

Oh incidentally men get nothing from being redheads apart from insults from the likes of me

But the chicks dig it, so just like those brightly colored birds we get something from it.

Besides, it came from your side of the stinkin' island.

I suddenly feel an urge to drink heavily and fight a losing battle against the English. . . :?

Rxke · 2005-08-25 09:11:23

Bit offtopic, but I recently discovered I'm a rather hard-core neo-Darwinist... The hard way.

i.e. all but breaking up a relationship because of someone really believing the Earth is tens of thousands years old, instead of several billions.

Or I'm a hard-core non-Christian? :?

C M Edwards · 2005-08-26 13:45:50

Bit offtopic, but I recently discovered I'm a rather hard-core neo-Darwinist... The hard way.
i.e. all but breaking up a relationship because of someone really believing the Earth is tens of thousands years old, instead of several billions.
Or I'm a hard-core non-Christian? :?

I've seen this before, I'm afraid.

Apparently being a literalist fundamentalist creationist makes people less likely to reproduce with members of the general population, creating a distinct sexual selection tendency toward people of their own kind.

We could be seeing the development of a new subspecies. :shock: ( )

Rxke · 2005-08-26 15:42:07

What 'worried' me was that my reaction was so strong...

It really changed my whole view of that person, felt like a /fundamental/ difference, while it could be argued we both have merely a different view on things.
Made me wonder how much i'm a 'believer' or even 'fundamentalistic' scientific thought adherent.

I feel really strongly alienated towards people with those views, turns out. And that rubs against the idea of 'people are free to think what they like,' something we often say, w/o thinking too much about what it really means...

SpaceNut · 2005-08-29 12:59:55

well we have gone forward from non living to living through the process. Here is an article that kind of goes in reverse de-evolving into a possible distant relative.
[url=http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1071228&page=1]Humans 'Bear All' at London Zoo
Eight Volunteers on Display to Teach Zoo Visitors About Conservation[/url]

SpaceNut · 2005-09-01 07:21:46

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9136200/]Chimp genetic code opens human frontiers
Genome comparison reveals many similarities — and crucial differences[/url]

Scientists unleashed a torrent of studies comparing the genetic coding for humans and chimpanzees on Wednesday, reporting that 96 percent of our DNA sequences are identical. Even more intriguingly, the other 4 percent appears to contain clues to how we became different from our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, they said.

Gee only 4% different but yet we look so different now as compared to a branch of ancestry...

SpaceNut · 2005-09-21 08:28:37

The Roots Of Civilization Trace Back To ... Roots

About five to seven million years ago, when the lineage of humans and chimpanzees split, edible root plants similar to rutabagas and turnips may have been one of the reasons.

human-chimp-anatomy-comparison

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-09-26 10:21:09

Aussies are now forced to swallow adam and eve as science - Intelligent Design in Australia
trouble with Darwin

John Creighton · 2005-09-26 18:56:53

Aussies are now forced to swallow adam and eve as science - Intelligent Design in Australia
trouble with Darwin

If that is what you want to call it

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-08-17 15:01:59

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#27 2005-08-17 15:51:43

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#28 2005-08-17 17:33:02

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#29 2005-08-18 01:42:56

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#30 2005-08-22 05:12:35

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#31 2005-08-22 07:10:07

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#32 2005-08-22 07:42:07

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#33 2005-08-23 03:19:19

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#34 2005-08-23 12:26:34

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#35 2005-08-23 13:39:49

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#36 2005-08-23 13:51:45

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#37 2005-08-23 14:09:01

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#38 2005-08-23 19:40:59

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#39 2005-08-24 09:59:11

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#40 2005-08-24 10:16:05

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#41 2005-08-24 13:44:23

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#42 2005-08-25 06:06:15

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#43 2005-08-25 09:11:23

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#44 2005-08-26 13:45:50

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#45 2005-08-26 15:42:07

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#46 2005-08-29 12:59:55

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#47 2005-09-01 07:21:46

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#48 2005-09-21 08:28:37

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#49 2005-09-26 10:21:09

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#50 2005-09-26 18:56:53

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

Board footer