|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Are humans evolving faster? - 6/18/2009 10:07:53 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 279
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sfs
Say rather that in the developed world, there is very little difference in fitness between different genotypes (since it is only genetic differences that matter when comparing the fitness of different individuals). Obviously, there are exceptions: some genetic variants have profound effects on fitness.
Watch out. You're using "fitness" like it were a state or property of an organism. It is not. It is only a statistical measure of past performance. If the measurement had predictive power, then it could be said to measure some property inherent to the organism, but it does not. There is no way to predict which that were "fit" yesterday will also be "fit" tomorrow. There is also no way to assign future "fitness" to any physical change we can detect. Herbert Spencer (incorrectly) coined the phrase "survival of the fittest", but who are the fittest? Those who survive! There is no other way to know. Thus the phrase reduces to a tautology.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are humans evolving faster? - 6/18/2009 10:55:09 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 856
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
In any case, I don't think any species is evolving into something 'higher' (as Darwin loved to say), nor ever has been. The whole 'higher' and 'lower' ideas are bogus since there is only more or less complex under a Darwinian paradigm. When Darwin used these words he was smuggling in a Judeo/Christian metaphysic without realizing it since he was a materialist.
-----
Genetic entropy means we're all slowly devolving.
With man and (because of man) even many domestic animals, technology has prevented NS from eliminating many slightly deleterious mutations. So they get passed on.
The genetic load increases and sooner or later leads to mutational meltdown.
Well said! Evolutionists keep trying to slip in that "Evolution = change over time" BS. Decay is also change over time, but that is not what evolutionists mean at all by "evolution": they mean microbes to men changes, with ever increasing complexity and invention of new structures, functionality, and genetic information. Their faith is not in change, but a certain kind of change. As much as they try to deny it, it seems their faith is in directional change opposite of entropy. Their faith defies a fundamental law of science, yet they claim evolution IS the very definition of science.
Demolaaaaaaaaaaay! Where have you been, man!? I tell, ya. You make one post after months of inactivity and it's gonna have a dirty acronym in it.  Welcome back, friend. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are humans evolving faster? - 6/18/2009 11:40:46 AM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 807
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sfs
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
So given that Muslims generally make an average of 8 babies per couple, they are more fit?
Only if there is such a thing as a genetic predisposition to being a Muslim. Fitness is a measure of how well different genetic variants do. Well I had decided to avoid this one as - under a creationist or ID paradigm I would normally agree - but I guess I'll take a shot anyway.
Now, if we're talking strictly standard NDE (the so called modern synthesis), which has no room whatsoever for teleology being involved nor any non-material entities, then you've actually raised a problem here. Under that view, whatever you are is entirely determined by your genetic makeup. Mind is material and nothing more, or as Crick said, "You are nothing but a pack of neurons".
Take that to it's simple logical conclusions and what do get? Neither Muslim nor Christian nor atheist nor creationist nor Darwinist has any real choice. Or as Will Provine stated, quote:
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent." This is the basic view of ~95% of NAS biologists.
So indeed, under the standard NDE theory you are genetically disposed to being whatever you are and neither reason nor free choice have anything to do with it.
And that is conspicuously very strange. For, if true, why should anyone try to convince anyone else of their errors? How could you possibly think the other 'pack of neurons' has any free will to choose to believe your own view? They cannot, for mind being merely electro-chemical activity in constant motion, stimulated by the body's environment, does not have a free choice.
Incredibly strange then that the proponents of this view nevertheless believe that their own view was chosen through a process of reason and logic rather than pure material determinism!!
Worse still. They come to forums like this to convince others of the error of their ways, which under their own paradigm are not really errors at all, but rather neurons moving differently than their own!!
Truly, quote:
"Only in Atheism does the spring rise higher than the source, the effect exist without the cause, life come from a stone, blood from a turnip, a silk purse from a sow’s ear, a Beethoven Symphony or a Bach Fugue from a kitten walking across the keys..." - James M. Gillis Curiously, the same remark applies remarkably well to Darwinism.
quote:
Or the genetic load increases until the deleterious alleles start to make a noticeable difference in fertility or survival, and then NS establishes a new equilibrium, but with more near-sighted or whatever people than before. Yes but yet, in the end, the obligatory overall loss of genetic information over time will destine the population's fitness to decline towards eventual extinction unless some outside force or information source reestablishes fitness.
NS is nevertheless highly overrated. It is no where near the almighty creative force NDE has mistakenly made it out to be. It's just a simple sieve, it doesn't create anything.
quote:
"And as Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have become ever more adept at finding possible selective advantages for any trait one cares to mention, explanation in terms of the all-powerful force of natural selection has come more and more to resemble explanation in terms of the conscious design of the omnipotent Creator." (Ho M-W. & Saunders P.T., eds., "Beyond Neo-Darwinism: An Introduction to the New Evolutionary Paradigm," Academic Press: London, 1984, p.x) No kidding!
_____________________________
"The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. ...To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked even though historical evidence is lacking." -W. R. Thompson, PhD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are humans evolving faster? - 6/19/2009 12:43:03 PM
|
|
|
E_Lin
Posts: 822
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Cincinnati, OH
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: shakezula
quote:
ORIGINAL: E_Lin
quote:
ORIGINAL: shakezula
then why is most of the world starving or living in destitute poverty?
Where do you get most of the world?
are you serious?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty
I am very serious. Did you read the whole wikipedia site, or did you just see what you wanted to see?
quote:
The World Bank defines extreme poverty as living on less than US $1.25 (PPP) per day, and moderate poverty as less than $2 a day, estimating that "in 2001, 1.1 billion people had consumption levels below $1 a day and 2.7 billion lived on less than $2 a day."
One important factor left out of the article is the comparison between income and expenses in those other countries. What difference does it make in a country where you make $2 a day, but your weekly grocery bill is less than $4? I want all the facts, not just those someone with an agenda wants me to see.
Did you happen to notice in the article that the percentage of those who are living in poverty is going down every year, everywhere? Which goes to prove my point, that we are no longer competing for the earth's resources like common animals.
quote:
The World Bank defines extreme poverty as living on less than US $1.25 (PPP) per day, and moderate poverty as less than $2 a day, estimating that "in 2001, 1.1 billion people had consumption levels below $1 a day and 2.7 billion lived on less than $2 a day."[3] The proportion of the developing world's population living in extreme economic poverty fell from 28 percent in 1990 to 21 percent in 2001.[3] Looking at the period 1981-2001, the percentage of the world's population living on less than $1 per day has halved.
Also from the same article:
quote:
World Bank data shows that the percentage of the population living in households with consumption or income per person below the poverty line has decreased in each region of the world since 1990:[11][12]
Moving on...
quote:
quote:
With all the churches and charitable organizitions out there helping people, there is little excuse for the starving or those living destitute.
read the webpage and let me know if you still believe this.
Yeah, I still believe it.
quote:
quote:
Unless you are talking about people living in countries where the government (usually a dictatorship) is keeping food and relief supplies from its own people.
that's a huge % of the world, though. plus there are some countries that are just plain poor. no dictatorship is needed.
Then reference above points.
quote:
quote:
My point is that countries like the USA and France and Italy, etc... do not go around invading countries to take their resources and leave the people to die, since we/they do not want the future competition. Like in the rest of the animal world, where it is survival of the fittest.
do you really believe this? ever hear of christopher columbus or colonialism in africa?
Once again you refuse to stop living in the past. I will try one more time to make this as plain as possible.
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT CENTURIES AGO - I AM TALKING ABOUT THE WORLD RIGHT NOW.
Christopher Columbus is not alive, landing in the Caribbean feeling misdirected. The Boer War is long over, Apartheid is gone, and Australia is no longer a prison colony.
Come to the present, shakezula, it is not as bad as people are being led to think...
_____________________________
"Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom? Quite astonishing..."
- Death (from the book "Hogfather" by Terry Pratchett)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are humans evolving faster? - 6/19/2009 6:26:14 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 279
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
I'm not trying to flame you, E-lin, just a general comment that I get really nervous about our future when I see folks follow quotes from wikipedia with comments like "I believe". Like wiki is the gospel source of Truth. A site where, basically, the loudest shouter wins.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are humans evolving faster? - 6/20/2009 12:33:55 AM
|
|
|
shakezula
Posts: 1055
Joined: 3/9/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: E_Lin
One important factor left out of the article is the comparison between income and expenses in those other countries. What difference does it make in a country where you make $2 a day, but your weekly grocery bill is less than $4? I want all the facts, not just those someone with an agenda wants me to see.
you should visit a part of the world that is poor before you speak so cynically of them. if you want more facts, go here:
http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00282/over_whatis.htm
the front page has a good definition of poverty:
"…a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information."
quote:
Did you happen to notice in the article that the percentage of those who are living in poverty is going down every year, everywhere? Which goes to prove my point, that we are no longer competing for the earth's resources like common animals.
of course we are in competition! countries compete against each other to manufacture products to trade to other nations. countries that can sell the same product at higher volumes and less cost than others gain an advantage. resources are needed to manufacture products, so they too are in high demand.
the % who are at or near poverty is still a majority of the world population.
quote:
Yeah, I still believe it.
that is heartbreaking. i cannot fathom how a person could look at the slums in India or famine victims and say that they have little excuse to be in their circumstances. some of the poorest places in the globe are also places that forbid Christians and charities.
we are very deeply blessed to live in a nation as wealthy as ours.
quote:
Once again you refuse to stop living in the past.
the past matters. ever wonder why africa never overcomes its poverty? after WW2, europe went on a drunken binge and invaded the continent. they used up africa's resources. then they left when the soil was ruined and most of the mineral wealth had been mined. most of the wars and famines that go on in africa today happen because of what europe did.
our church just sent a mission team to haiti. haiti is the poorest country on our side of the globe. the french controlled haiti until 1800's. that might seem like the distant past to you. but it is not that way for haiti. because when the french left, they razed the jungles and literally burned their forests and farmland down to the ground. haiti used to be a lush jungle. now they can barely grow anything. crops literally burn from the heat during the dry season. so the country constantly suffers from civil wars and dictators. one of its few sources of income is drugs. like ghitch said, the world is getting worse.
quote:
Christopher Columbus is not alive, landing in the Caribbean feeling misdirected.
but why was columbus sailing in the first place? what did he do once he came to the new world?
quote:
Come to the present, shakezula, it is not as bad as people are being led to think..
it is worse. scripture tells us to expect it to be worse.
_____________________________
watch out for the oo moo and the blehblehbleh
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are humans evolving faster? - 6/20/2009 12:42:41 AM
|
|
|
E_Lin
Posts: 822
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Cincinnati, OH
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
I'm not trying to flame you, E-lin, just a general comment that I get really nervous about our future when I see folks follow quotes from wikipedia with comments like "I believe". Like wiki is the gospel source of Truth. A site where, basically, the loudest shouter wins.
Where did I say that I believe what "Wikipedia" has to say? I only quoted from it because it was quoted to me. Wiki is generally one of the last places I go for any references...
_____________________________
"Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom? Quite astonishing..."
- Death (from the book "Hogfather" by Terry Pratchett)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are humans evolving faster? - 6/20/2009 1:11:15 AM
|
|
|
E_Lin
Posts: 822
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Cincinnati, OH
Status: offline
|
quote:
of course we are in competition! countries compete against each other to manufacture products to trade to other nations. countries that can sell the same product at higher volumes and less cost than others gain an advantage. resources are needed to manufacture products, so they too are in high demand.
You still refuse to get what I am saying. The competition that you speak of is process of global economics at work. The countries that are doing the competing are doing so to better themselves, not to kill off and eliminate other rival countries. That is the type of competition I am saying we are no longer involving ourselves in, as the human race.
quote:
that is heartbreaking. i cannot fathom how a person could look at the slums in India or famine victims and say that they have little excuse to be in their circumstances. some of the poorest places in the globe are also places that forbid Christians and charities.
Forgive me for playing the "devil's advocate". You were the one who posted a thread which asked a question from the point of view that evolution is a given. I decided to answer it from that standpoint as well. It may seem a little cold and heartless, but then so is evolution, and the implications that arise from it.
Survival of the fittest suggests that those who are not fit, or cannot adapt, do not survive, yet those people you mention today living with abject poverty and starvation continue to thrive (if it can actually be called that). Evolution's model suggests that such people should be dying off, but instead, according to studies done, their populations are growing. Thus, as "Natural Selection" is the primary engine that drives evolution, it is evident that it does not apply to the human race.
In other words, you asked a loaded question, so I gave you a loaded answer. 
_____________________________
"Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom? Quite astonishing..."
- Death (from the book "Hogfather" by Terry Pratchett)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are humans evolving faster? - 6/20/2009 9:03:12 PM
|
|
|
shakezula
Posts: 1055
Joined: 3/9/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: E_Lin
You still refuse to get what I am saying. The competition that you speak of is process of global economics at work. The countries that are doing the competing are doing so to better themselves, not to kill off and eliminate other rival countries.
maybe not other countries (right now), but in darfur & sri lanka, people are killing their own countrymen. darfur is happening because one faction was being deprived of access to basic needs and resources, so they fought back, and now thousands have died.
quote:
Forgive me for playing the "devil's advocate".
devil's advocate is when you take a position that both sides know is not your real position. in your previous post, you reaffirmed that these were your true beliefs.
quote:
You were the one who posted a thread which asked a question from the point of view that evolution is a given. I decided to answer it from that standpoint as well. It may seem a little cold and heartless, but then so is evolution, and the implications that arise from it.
so you take a position that some people are insignificant and the world is a happier place to prove.......what? i don't get it.
quote:
survival of the fittest suggests that those who are not fit, or cannot adapt, do not survive, yet those people you mention today living with abject poverty and starvation continue to thrive (if it can actually be called that).
i have no idea what you mean. you said that they had no excuses to be in poverty.
quote:
Evolution's model suggests that such people should be dying off, but instead, according to studies done, their populations are growing.
these people are not genetically inferior. they are just born into desperate situations. plus education has always meant lower birth rates.
quote:
In other words, you asked a loaded question, so I gave you a loaded answer.
i don't want to accuse you of dishonesty, since i am not sure what your point is, or whether i am understanding you. but if you do not believe the things you said in your earlier posts, then i think you should state that clearly and apologize for saying them in the first place.
_____________________________
watch out for the oo moo and the blehblehbleh
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are humans evolving faster? - 6/28/2009 6:08:40 AM
|
|
|
E_Lin
Posts: 822
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Cincinnati, OH
Status: offline
|
quote:
i don't want to accuse you of dishonesty, since i am not sure what your point is, or whether i am understanding you. but if you do not believe the things you said in your earlier posts, then i think you should state that clearly and apologize for saying them in the first place.
I admit that I have been kind of "beating around the bush", as it were. As a general, personal, rule, I make it a point not to go into my personal beliefs here at Crosswalk. Oh, sure, I will throw out things here and there and scratch the surface occasionally. But for the most part I like the back and forth of the discussion, and I enjoy seeing how other people react to some certain viewpoints. At times this will even serve to either solidify or cause me to reconsider the way I look at things. But don't ever think I look at life too seriously. I cannot. If I did, I would never be able to cope with it.
As far as apologizing, don't hold your breath. If I say something hurtful, or that I know should never have been said at all, I am not hesitant to do so, as to do otherwise would be considered bad form. But the one good thing about not having a conscience is never having to feel bad about anything I ever say. That doesn't mean I don't want to feel, it just is what it is. Does that make me cold? Maybe, but then doesn't somebody have to be?
_____________________________
"Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom? Quite astonishing..."
- Death (from the book "Hogfather" by Terry Pratchett)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Are humans evolving faster? - 6/29/2009 2:07:54 AM
|
|
|
shakezula
Posts: 1055
Joined: 3/9/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: E_Lin
I admit that I have been kind of "beating around the bush", as it were.
As a general, personal, rule, I make it a point not to go into my personal beliefs here at Crosswalk.
you have stated your personal beliefs. you stated that:
quote:
With all the churches and charitable organizitions out there helping people, there is little excuse for the starving or those living destitute.
when i asked if you still believe this, you said:
quote:
Yeah, I still believe it.
you have stated your personal beliefs. we know that you believe that the french and americans are superior to third world peoples. we know that you believe that the world is more peaceful and cooperative than it used to be. we know that you believe that the starving and destitute have no excuse for their suffering.
when i asked you if you really believed these things you said:
quote:
I am very serious.
so you have stated your beliefs. what you have "beat around the bush" on is the point you are trying to make.
quote:
But the one good thing about not having a conscience is never having to feel bad about anything I ever say. That doesn't mean I don't want to feel, it just is what it is. Does that make me cold? Maybe, but then doesn't somebody have to be?
why would people have to be cold? and why would you consider not having a conscience to be a good thing?
_____________________________
watch out for the oo moo and the blehblehbleh
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
