An Interesting Intellectual puzzle...

[Nightclub Dwight]

Justinginn-- I don't wanna hijack this thread or anything, but theres a ton of proof of Darwins evolution threory, and not one shred of evidence of a God or otherwise devine being.

I know we all disagree on politics, immigration, health care, Obama etc.  But in this day and age, it befuddles me how the myth of God still persists.  When did Zeuss and Apollo get axed for this new guy who insists on screwing up the world with hatred and prejudice?  Seriously, if there is one thing we could just eliminate to make the world a better place, all the different ideas/myths/stories about some type of God have to go.  We've seen more wars, hatred and atrocities in the past few thousand years in the name of God than for any other reason.  And keep in mind the idea of God is relative; every person on this planet seems to think their personal interpretation of God is the right one exclusively.

I'll tell you, it just stinks.  Personally I believe in Dog--as in canine.  At least I know they exist,  And no one starts wars in their name.

Sorry for the hijack.  Go ahead and banish me if you must.  I expect it.  My dog told me the day would come......

 

[Justinginn]

Justinginn-- I don't wanna hijack this thread or anything, but theres a ton of proof of Darwins evolution threory, and not one shred of evidence of a God or otherwise devine being.

So what about the human conscience? How is that explained by survival of the fittest? We can argue absolute morality as much as we want but two things are obvious:
1) Everyone has a concept of morality, whether or not we agree on it and every society has a set of rights and wrongs.
2) There are always gonna be some things that are just wrong. Doesn't matter what you think about absolute morality. Like killing your children and eating them. I'm not sure anyone would argue with that. Maybe someone would say they did it and had a reason for it but all people have inside them a concept of there needing to be a right and wrong.
So how does that evolve? I've heard the "morality is a product of survival of the fittest because it allows us to coexist and work together as humans." But is that really how something like morality would evolve? Things such as honor don't help you in a strictly survival of the fittest world. Or a value of honesty (which is valued in pretty much any society at any time -- whether or not people were actually honest, the value is undeniably there), for example. It's often more advantageous to be dishonest or to break honor, etc. and if all morality is is the way we have evolved and adapted to "get along" with others of our species for our own personal gain and to pass on genes, why is there a concept of something being wrong even if it's beneficial to me? Animals don't have that and it doesn't make sense for humans to develop that characteristic because it's limiting of what we can do for our survival and the passing on of our genes. And why do all humans, regardless of where they developed/formed societies, etc. have this somewhat similar sense of morality? They don't all have the same rules and values but they all have the same system by which there must be a right and wrong and the conception of right and wrong must exist even when it isn't to the best interest of their survival/reproduction. It doesn't make any sense for that to evolve. It doesn't make any sense for us to have any concept of right and wrong and especially not for people on opposite sides of the world to have a similar sense of right and wrong unless people were created that way. It doesn't fit into survival of the fittest.

There's a shred.

 

[Justinginn]

We've seen more wars, hatred and atrocities in the past few thousand years in the name of God than for any other reason.

I'll say this: people will always be stupid and use whatever justification they can find for whatever they wanna do. Religion has been used more than its fair share as an excuse for people to be stupid. The crusades, for example were 100% political. Anyone who had any idea what the Pope was actually supposed to believe would know there's no reason for a religious war in Christianity. It was all about political power.

 

[Nightclub Dwight]

Anyone who had any idea what the Pope was actually supposed to believe would know there's no reason for a religious war in Christianity. It was all about political power.

In my humble opinion, all organized religions are about political power.  In my last post I may have been a little harsh in my God bashing.  Even though I don't have a clear picture of God in my mind, I have no hatred against such a being.  Rather, I despise the organizations that man has developed in the name of God.  If God herself actually came down and started a church or worship center, I'd be all over that.  But I'm not going to join a club that man has developed in his feeble attempt to placate an imaginary God.

And to address the above quotation from Justinginn.....I'm no religious expert, but I thought that no one has any idea what the Pope is supposed to do, as the Pope gets his orders directly from God.  So, under the current system, how are we to judge?  If the Pope is acting on direct orders from God, he is presumably more informed than any of us mere mortals.  Seems fishy, doesn't it?  The Pope is not the first dictator to claim "divine guidance."

If God truely wanted us to worship her, why would she put a middleman in the way between us to tell us what to think?  Why wouldn't she just communicate with us directly?  I think she may be doing just that, but those middlemen want to distract us from God's true message so that they can keep their positions of power, and continue to abuse young boys as they see fit.

Its like the Supreme Court's definition of pornography.  I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it.  When I look at a sunrise I see God.  When I see the infinite stars in a clear winter sky, I see God.  When I see a child smile, I see God.  When I see a church, a mosque, or a temple, I just see real estate.  When I see a person speaking the word of God, I see a charlatan. 

If I'm wrong I'll pay the price.  I can live with that.

As far as Darwin is concerned, remember that he was the first to present the theory of evolution.  Maybe not everything was totally correct, but it seems to be a lot more pertinent than the version of creation presented in any of the major religions (or the Greek/Roman myths etc).  There are gaps in our knowledge for sure, but its pretty amazing how accurate these theories are in light of the fossil evidence.

So to clarify my stance, I agree that there may be a supreme being that created this whole show we call life, but to think that any of our myths/religions actually speak for that supreme being is really silly and infantile on our part.

I mean no offense to anyone who believes different.  You may well be right.  We all have to live with our own beliefs and decisions.

 

[Jusatele]

I believe religion is a necessity among intelligent animals. With out it we would use our intelligence against each other in worse ways than we have historically.
One thing you have to face is that humans are the biggest locust the earth has ever seen, we will use up a resource till it is gone if we are allowed to and just move on without remorse. I fear that without a social moral foundation we are taught to fear that we would probably have a population  on this earth counted in millions instead of billions. Face it, weather we like it or not, religion has been the base of human morality since the dawn of civilization, and the further we get from it the more our individual societies become self consuming. The concepts of fear and respect of authority are within it;s realm and those are concepts that keep us civilized. Anarchy has no remorse because remorse is a learned response. If you see no bad in a crime, then you are likely to commit it. If you see it as a means for personal gain, then you act. Excepting the criminally insane, how many murders have been done without some form of personal gain or power involved? Not many, Now I admit some wars and such have been done in the name of religion, but then that reinforces the concept I have set forth.
Religion is necessary weather there is a God or not.

 

[AGWAN]

you also assume that all species require 2 genders, many simpler forms of life are hermaphrodite or reproduce without sex

I find it disturbing this thread took 3 pages for someone to note this.

that being said. people believe in a god because they WANT to. and if that want works for them thats fine. I stopped believing in god because I took years seeking truth, and truth may not have been what I desired.(Which was a deeper faith) but it was true

people want to think everything means something and they never have to die, if that helps them. let it.

 

[Alfang]

Species do not evolve to suit their environment, rather this, they have a genetic change at some point, and by they, I mean one of them, and that changed gene spreads throughout the species over time, that is, if the change is not a hinderance to their survival,

Heres an example, back before the industrial smoke stacks in London started spewing out black smoke, most of the moths that sat perched on the sides of the buildings and structures were light colored, tan white whatever.
They blended into their environment, there were darker moths but not as many because the birds could see them easily and eat them.

As the dark suit from the smokestacks discolored the walls of the buildings, the white moths stood out more and the darker moths blended in better, the white moths were prayed upon even more than the dark ones. Therefore the ratio of black moths and white moths changed

when a species changes, it doesnt just change accross the board, but rather splits, and over time the better of the two branches will survive, or they may both infact die off.

I don't know, but I would suspect that for every positive result of a changed gene, added gene deleted gene or whatever, theres thousands more bad changes than good changes, and those don't survive long enough to benefit the species.

If an ant changed a gene and started to emit an oder of a t-bone steak, My dog would find it and eat it. the gene would neverpass on to other ants. If a mosquitto injected you with something that made you feel good, would you still smash him?

 

[kboman]

Justinginn-- I don't wanna hijack this thread or anything, but theres a ton of proof of Darwins evolution threory, and not one shred of evidence of a God or otherwise devine being.

So what about the human conscience? How is that explained by survival of the fittest? We can argue absolute morality as much as we want but two things are obvious:
1) Everyone has a concept of morality, whether or not we agree on it and every society has a set of rights and wrongs.
2) There are always gonna be some things that are just wrong. Doesn't matter what you think about absolute morality. Like killing your children and eating them. I'm not sure anyone would argue with that. Maybe someone would say they did it and had a reason for it but all people have inside them a concept of there needing to be a right and wrong.
So how does that evolve? I've heard the "morality is a product of survival of the fittest because it allows us to coexist and work together as humans." But is that really how something like morality would evolve? Things such as honor don't help you in a strictly survival of the fittest world. Or a value of honesty (which is valued in pretty much any society at any time -- whether or not people were actually honest, the value is undeniably there), for example. It's often more advantageous to be dishonest or to break honor, etc. and if all morality is is the way we have evolved and adapted to "get along" with others of our species for our own personal gain and to pass on genes, why is there a concept of something being wrong even if it's beneficial to me? Animals don't have that and it doesn't make sense for humans to develop that characteristic because it's limiting of what we can do for our survival and the passing on of our genes. And why do all humans, regardless of where they developed/formed societies, etc. have this somewhat similar sense of morality? They don't all have the same rules and values but they all have the same system by which there must be a right and wrong and the conception of right and wrong must exist even when it isn't to the best interest of their survival/reproduction. It doesn't make any sense for that to evolve. It doesn't make any sense for us to have any concept of right and wrong and especially not for people on opposite sides of the world to have a similar sense of right and wrong unless people were created that way. It doesn't fit into survival of the fittest.

There's a shred.

Firstly, I can not claim experise in this area but I've had some education. It seems like "survival of the fittest" is too often confused with "survival of the strongest", but they are not the same.

Cooperation and altruism are powerful evolutionary mechanism, more so than you seem to give them credit above. By working together one group of individuals can be more successful than their unorganised rivals, thus benefiting all those in that group. This can be applied to both small and large groups of individuals, from families to nations and leagues of nations.
Working together effectively requires a set of basic ground rules that limit individual behaviour that is destructive to the group, such as killing other people or stealing just because you feel like it. These rules have been very very deeply ingrained in our societies and are very similar, with local variations, because they are necessary for the societies to work. Anarchy and communism are to some extent based on the absence of rules written in stone and rather on the ideal that human beings can work together voluntarliy. This has not, historically, been very successful... (although actual communism has never been achieved)
Human beings also have (generally, comparatively) strong empathy that can let us imagine what it would be like to be subject to destructive behaviour ourselves. Since it's not a pleasant thought, it works as another break on such behaviour.

Religion, without going too deep into that quagmire (giggity), could be seen as an effective way of codifying behavioural rules and guidelines. As a side effect, it can also grant great power to individuals and groups of individuals (or nations). It is not in itself necessary for society to work, but the rules and guidelines appear to be.

Etcetera. I'm at work and this has taken 4 hours to write, but that's a sketch of my thoughts.

 

[drewfx]

When you consider the environmental and cultural changes that humans have endured since the Industrial Revolution, has there been any major change to our appearance or character? I know that medical science, and an increase in general education and hygiene, has been credited to a larger human being and one that lives longer if eating healty, but biologically has anything changed from the Victorian era human?  If Darwin's Theory and these Animal Behaviour studies are to be accepted as science, why then aren't the human species changing to meet the changing circumstances of our survival?

We are continuing to evolve - you just haven't read about it.

For instance, in the last few years there have been DNA studies showing tolerance for lactose in humans is a "recent" evolution.

I remember reading an article a few years ago in a magazine (Science? can't remember - it was something I read in a hospital waiting room), that contrary to "conventional wisdom", evolution in humans may actually be accelerating in the modern world.

 

[AndyG]

We are continuing to evolve - you just haven't read about it.

For instance, in the last few years there have been DNA studies showing tolerance for lactose in humans is a "recent" evolution.

I remember reading an article a few years ago in a magazine (Science? can't remember - it was something I read in a hospital waiting room), that contrary to "conventional wisdom", evolution in humans may actually be accelerating in the modern world.

Not sure about that.
Through modern medicine, we are allowing (and please do not take offense to this) "defective" people to survive, and procreate.  The whole idea behind evolution is that traits that encourage survival get passed on, wheras traits that hinder survial gradually get eliminated from our genes.  Not only that, as a result of the hormones found in most of our food, kids are entering puberty at much earlier ages than, say 100 years ago.  So longer lifespans and more opportunity to go forth and multiply has slowed our physical evolution considerably.
I believe that what is evolving within humans is our intellectual capacity.  There have been geniuses across the centuries, but I believe that a greater number of humans now have the capacity to learn and understand than ever before.  How many people back in Galileo's time, or Newton's time would be capable of understanding what they were talking about? 

 

[Justinginn]

Nightclub, I'll agree with you on religion not getting close. I believe in God. I don't really believe in religion. If God created the universe and created humans to somehow be different than other beings, he wants a personal relationship. He wants people to talk to him directly. No Pope. In the 1500's a movement in Christianity split the church in two about, among other things, whether or not there had to be a priest/whatever you wanna call it between God and the man on the street. You're right. If God is real, he should interact with people on a personal level, not be some far-off figure who cannot be identified or related to. I believe he is personal.

Alf, here's a thought. As far as I've ever heard, (feel free to do some research) observed, documented evolution (i.e. not based on suggestive evidence but directly studied - the Peppered moths being a great example) has never contributed new genes to the pool but removed genes already there; we haven't seen mutation create anything new. It's true that these developments helped the creatures to survive and thus stuck but they weren't complicating the DNA, only simplifying it. Information isn't created. So that explains variety within species (scientists have said it's possible for all the variations in humans to come from just two people's genes) but it doesn't explain moving from very simple organisms to very complex organisms. I'm not saying it's impossible just not observed and while the Peppered moths are a great example of microevolution we've been able to study (evolution within a species), it's not exactly the same as macroevolution (evolution from one species to another) because that requires new genes to be created.

You all have some good points about how morality/religion is beneficial to the survival of a society. I still wonder how to explain its origin apart from intelligent design. But good points.

I'm kinda in awe that this thread has remained civil.  ccasion14:

 

[Wyliee]

I'm kinda in awe that this thread has remained civil.  ccasion14:

Let's keep it that way folks.  The thread is being monitored and will go away if comments do not remain civil.

 

[drewfx]

We are continuing to evolve - you just haven't read about it.

For instance, in the last few years there have been DNA studies showing tolerance for lactose in humans is a "recent" evolution.

I remember reading an article a few years ago in a magazine (Science? can't remember - it was something I read in a hospital waiting room), that contrary to "conventional wisdom", evolution in humans may actually be accelerating in the modern world.

Not sure about that.
Through modern medicine, we are allowing (and please do not take offense to this) "defective" people to survive, and procreate.  The whole idea behind evolution is that traits that encourage survival get passed on, wheras traits that hinder survial gradually get eliminated from our genes.  Not only that, as a result of the hormones found in most of our food, kids are entering puberty at much earlier ages than, say 100 years ago.  So longer lifespans and more opportunity to go forth and multiply has slowed our physical evolution considerably.
I believe that what is evolving within humans is our intellectual capacity.  There have been geniuses across the centuries, but I believe that a greater number of humans now have the capacity to learn and understand than ever before.  How many people back in Galileo's time, or Newton's time would be capable of understanding what they were talking about?  

Just to make clear, the argument the evolutionary speed might be increasing was based on analysis of dNA, i.e. hard science. That isn't to say it's necessarily commonly accepted in the scientific community at this time (I really have no idea about that).

The point is that there is a fair amount of research being done into the "current" state of evolution in humans, even if it's not commonly known outside of the scientific community. And that there is some hard scientific evidence that evolution in humans continues...

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

There's genetic bottlenecks too.

 

[ocguy106]

here is a theory, only my own of course. Some animal species can intermingle and produce a new offspring, such as horse and donkey producing a mule. What if millions of years ago during the time that all life forms produce asexually one of them injected there dna string into another species. The host species body rejects the donor dna and builds a wall around it but it stays in its body of the host all the while what is inside that wall is developing. Eventually the host species expels the foreign object as an "egg" what emerges is a new species slightly different than either of its "parents" and possibly the start of the chicken and the egg.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

In the case of the mule, they are sterile females.  That's why mules don't make more mules.  I haven't had bio since the 7th grade, but I think animals of a different species can mate within the same Genus, which is the classification before species.  That's how dogs can mate with other dogs but not cats and so on, and people can mate with other apes.  Different Genus and Species.  Your theory is thought provoking, but it sounds similar to a virus or parasite and I'm sure that's not what you mean.  The thing with a theory too, it can be tested and replicated...usually.  I haven't seen The Big Bang Theory get tested and replicated yet, unless one means re-runs.

 

[ocguy106]

In the case of the mule, they are sterile females.  That's why mules don't make more mules.  I haven't had bio since the 7th grade, but I think animals of a different species can mate within the same Genus, which is the classification before species.  That's how dogs can mate with other dogs but not cats and so on, and people can mate with other apes.  Different Genus and Species.  Your theory is thought provoking, but it sounds similar to a virus or parasite and I'm sure that's not what you mean.  The thing with a theory too, it can be tested and replicated...usually.  I haven't seen The Big Bang Theory get tested and replicated yet, unless one means re-runs.

Yeah I know mules are sterile but the lower down the food chain you go the more simple the life form. Lower life forms can regenerate body parts people can only regenerate skin. Anyway this is just a theory for how an egg may have come into exsitance.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

Anyway this is just a theory for how an egg may have come into exsitance.

So the chicken came first?  LOL

 

[erogenousjones17]

The thing with a theory too, it can be tested and replicated...usually.  I haven't seen The Big Bang Theory get tested and replicated yet, unless one means re-runs.

A hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences; i.e. it can be tested and replicated. A theory, on the other hand, is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (i.e. an explanation based on the result of testing hypotheses). It's semantics, but in science it's important to make that distinction.

To be perfectly honest, I've lost my train of thought and forgotten where I was going with that. However, I'm going to post it anyway, 'cuz definitions are fun.  :doh:

 

[drewfx]

If you wish to read some introductory scientific theory on this subject, I found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction