Evolution : Where are we headed to

by bioflex 50 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    Well i am making this up too

    Yes you are making it up bioflex. You are trying to win this argument by throwing around insults and imputing questionable motives. For the record, humans cannot reproduce with other species. That's what species means on a biological level---the inability to reproduce with members outside your species. There are some exceptions--for instance when sub-species are still so closely related, they may produce offspring--like the Mule. But the offspring are sterile. That's a donkey and a horse. Humans are not that close to any other species.

    The reason you will not win your argument, and the reason that preacher will never make anyone listen, are the unsupported insults. "Well if we believe in evolution, what's to stop us from committing bestiality?" "Ooooo look, I never actually read this book, but Darwin is talking about RACES, he's a racist!"

    Darwin probably was a racist. It was the norm for the time period he lived in---EVERYONE was racist. He was also an abolitionist, during a time when preachers used scriptures to support slavery.

    Eugenics did grow from science, and anthropology accepts the responsiblity for this grave mistake. But guess who leads in the fight against such ideas? Anthropologists. It was an anthropologist that first insisted that taking measurements and breaking people down by race had absolutely no scientific value. The fight continues today. Anthropologists will all tell you that race cannot be defined biologically and is an arbitrary concept that humans judge by appearance.

    They came to this conclusion after a relatively short time, while the churches preached this mistake for thousands of years. The scientific process is all about proving ideas wrong, and when they do so, they admit it and set about fixing things. I don't remember the scientist's name, but a professor had worked on a hypothesis for FIFTY years. His entire life. One day an American scientist came in, took a look and proved it wrong. Do you know what the professor's response was? He thanked him. He thanked him for falsifying his life's work. Because now he had his answer and that was the driving force.

    Your preacher condemns critical thinking, which means he is not interested in fixing his mistakes. He throws around insults and presents partial truths to support his argument. He never even read Origin of the Species, and yet he is confident that it is trash. He does not even understand the theory of evolution, but he just knows it's not true. You see, he figured it all out before he even got to high school. He figured it out before his education started concentrating on critical thinking. His mind was closed before he even had the skill to properly question his belief.

    Don't fall into that trap Bioflex. If creation is true, then try to prove it wrong. That is what a scientist would do, and if it's true there is nothing to fear. But you can't prove it true by disproving evolution. You must prove it is true by trying to prove creation is false. If it stands strong no matter how much you try to prove it is wrong, then it grows stronger. But it never grows safe. It should always be open to question and challenge, and as our knowledge grows and new techniques and understandings are developed, it must stand up to that too. That is what is happening with evolution.

    When Darwin put forth his theory we knew nothing about genetics. Today we have cracked genomes. Guess what. Evolution still has not been disproven even with this extraordinary knowledge. It continues to hold and the picture becomes clearer.

    NC

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety
    On the other hand evolution does not encourage morality

    Morality is an embedded app. If it did not encourage moral behavior we would not be moral animals. If we were not moral we would not be a successful species.

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    Morality is an embedded app. If it did not encourage moral behavior we would not be moral animals. If we were not moral we would not be a successful species

    It's kind of a chicken and egg question. Are we here because we are moral, or are we moral because we are here? Because we set the standard for morality. If we were doing something that destroyed our survival, we would see it as immoral. But the definition of morality is subjective. There is a band that has a strong taboo that prevents women from having sex for one year after she gives birth. To do so would be the height of immorality and she may be punished by her baby dying. It turns out that their diet is extremely low in protein. It's not a huge problem except for the very young. So if this woman were to become pregnant too soon and interrupt breast feeding, chances are high that the original baby would die. Is it immoral to have sex less than a year after giving birth? Not to most of us. But to a group that regularly saw closely spaced babies die, then yes it is.

    Today, with a higher quality diet and birth control, chances are good that this taboo may die. Suddenly it will no longer be immoral to have sex in that first year.

    NC

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Once I heard him say that some people say they believe in evolution AND creation and he objected that you CANNOT do that because the Bible says [some drivel that indicates it is 100% literal], I was done with this guy.

    Even though I don't believe in both, it is clear that believers can believe that the Bible is not the literal version of creation as they understand it.

    I watched a documentary about "The Human Spark" ( http://www.pbs.org/wnet/humanspark/ ) The particular episode I watched discussed Neanderthals and how they didn't make it. Reality is hard to face for Bible literalists. Neanderthal and dinosaurs really don't fit into their world. But they were there, they were real.

  • undercover
    undercover

    Having stumbled accidently on to an episode of Jersey Shore one night, I had the realization that humans may have already peaked on the evoutionary scale and are now reversing.

    Which led me to ponder on how that could have happened and realized that as man progressed and found ways to fight illness and disease, the 'survival of the fittest' thing no longer applies. Sick, weakly, unintelligent humans can now prosper due to the evolution of other human brains to find cures for previous ailments that filtered the gene pool. Now the pool is no longer filtered but is contaminated with sub-par DNA that previously would not have survived. Mix all that together and you get de-evolution, thus... Jersey Shore

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    OTWO--so true. And new genetic evidence suggests that modern humans reproduced with Neanderthal, and that really doesn't fit the literal view. The information is still new, but it does appear that Europeans and Asians my have up to 2% of Neanderthal genes. I believe that means that 2% of the Neanderthal genes were preserved, not that H. sapien gene code is 2% Neanderthal. So while this doesn't support that we grew from Neanderthal, it does support that we were so closely related we could reproduce. Which, if true, would make the two sub species and not different species, and that definitely does not fit, because it suggests that on the first day God created Adam and he also created N. adam.

    NC

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety

    It's kind of a chicken and egg question. Are we here because we are moral, or are we moral because we are here?

    I consider it more of a parallel development.

  • bohm
    bohm

    Since most children survive to reproductive age independent of the parents abilities, I would suggest we are selecting towards simply having more children.

    A set of genes which caused people to have an uncontrolled urge to have children would spread very quickly.

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    Which led me to ponder on how that could have happened and realized that as man progressed and found ways to fight illness and disease, the 'survival of the fittest' thing no longer applies. Sick, weakly, unintelligent humans can now prosper due to the evolution of other human brains to find cures for previous ailments that filtered the gene pool. Now the pool is no longer filtered but is contaminated with sub-par DNA that previously would not have survived. Mix all that together and you get de-evolution, thus... Jersey Shore

    LOL, have you seen the movie Idiocracy?

  • NewChapter

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit