Human Devolution? Interesting Article...

by AGuest 233 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sizemik

  Demographic studies in humans have indicatd that fertility rate and intelligence are inversely correlated. . . . TD

  I think we're essentially on the same page . . . certainly in terms of the difficulties in how to attribute these sorts of changes. Successful breeding is usually the standard result of beneficial mutational change as determined by environment. The problem here I think lies in the fact that throughout the history of biological evolution, we can readily observe an obvious correlation between mutation/natural selection and changes in the natural environment. Some argue that man-initiated environmental changes are "natural" . . . but to distinguish the two is more helpful when trying to apply the accepted mechanisms of evolution to changes in homo sapiens.

  What I mean by that . . . is that we sometimes fail to see the more subtle man-initited changes as environmental change, ie; changing technological, cultural and societal conditions. How these environmental changes impact on evolutionary mechanisms is not so easily discerned because of the narrow field of view compared to the more macro-view of biological evolution over much greater time periods. These changes, like the wider view, are often only discernable with the same benefit of far reaching hindsight. A kind of "can't see the wood for the trees" syndrome.

  The other consideration is that success is only viewed in terms of survivability . . . it doesn't necessarily translate into something of superior overall quality by direct comparison . . . only that which determines survival, which can include the loss of redundant "abilities" as well as the addition of advantages.
• 

  sabastious

  The Intelligent Design argument is dead in the water becasue there is no positive evidence to support it.

  Saying that we have the ability to critique God's creation and deem it unworthy of being called Intelligent Design is actually what is dead in the water. And the argument that if it's beyond us we should not strive to understand it is foolish. That's what we were made for, to push towards our creator and eventually meet Him. Creating means FROM NOTHING, and we have magically been given that ability and we should be greatful for it. Therefore that leaves the question of evil which is then shown to support the initial flawed conclusion against intelligent design. To me the atheist crux is the question of evil, not critiquing creation like God has to be similar to human engineers.

  Sab, I find Evolution to be very beautiful and not negative at all. The process of falsifying with the goal to finding the better answer is not negative at all. It's liberating. It tamps down egos, and it cuts off bias---two things that can prevent progress.

  I alsofind evolution to be extremely beautiful, but I think it's stupid if it ends in a deep freeze. Lets just freeze us now and get it over with is how I feel. It's so discouraging to work knowing that it's all going to be destroyed by a war, famine, pestilence or a hurling celestial body. It sounds like you just brush this off and replace it with "evolution is beautiful." Frankly it sounds like Witnesses defending their preaching work. I don't mean to offend, I am just making a genuine observation and descibing my feelings on the matter.

  There is falsification for the sake of being contradictory and argumentative. That is not what we are discussing here. That would not bring about the results we are all trying to achieve. ID is this way. It is not honest debate, but has an agenda. For scientifically minded people we find the scientific method to be beautiful, not negative, because it brings us closer to the answers and that is what really excites us. The better answers and the process that leads to them.

  I don't see how you can act like Science doesn't have an agenda. Maybe the scientific method doesn't (unless it was designed to have one), but surely scientists all have their own agendas. Peer review is flawed because laypeople cannot reproduce top level science, they require a measure of faith, but this is explained by a "study hard and you won't need faith" clause. Yes, people could become astrophysicists, or whatever, to explain something to themselves but they can't enter and become an expert in every field. Science fundamentally is exactly the same thing as ID it just uses a more rigid methodology and seeks prove existing phenomenon instead of answering really big questions of religious philosophy. It just sounds like you are putting up Evolution against ID and we all know that's a dead horse. It's a logical stalemate and my thread on disproving creationism serves as solid evidence of this.

  You seem to think that scientists sit around in a room sniping at each other and getting personal. That they view the entire world with cynicism. We are pretty much too blown away at the granduer of what we are learning to worry about being overly cynical. It's' humbling. I'm sure that because it is driven by humans, there are personality conflicts, but this is why it is even more important to keep the process pure.

  No, I love the process of science, but I don't like that the community that surrounds it refuses to admit accountability. They want to say that their process is perfect and that's just not true. The reason being is that it's governed by people and people are highly flawed therefore any system ran by them will be subject to flaws. There is no difference between a group of people who decide to use the Bible as their content and one's who choose to use the natural world. Both groups will come up with vastly different conclusions, but if those conclusions show measurable use in the external world, then they are a legitimate group with a legitimate method.

  In the end, you are arguing against results. It is through this method that we have reached some pretty astounding results. And yet you seem to resent that the approach is not more phylisophical. Learn to compartmentalize. Philosopy has its value for some, and perhaps even draws on science for further enlightenment, but it is a different area with a different method. Science does not ask that Philosophy be more scientific. Why must you lament that the scientific method is not more philisophical? They are separate issues that feed very different things.

  Now wait a minute, it works both ways. Science draws from philsosphy just as philosophy draws from science. They are compliments of each other, but that's not what the majority of the scientific community thinks and especially not the leaders like Dawkins and deGrasse Tyson. They seem to purport that philosophy is a dying breed and that eventually it will a thing of the past and science will be king. It's just an agenda to replace the ideas of the past when those ideas are NOT obsolete and never will be. It just wreaks of power play to me, but what do I know?

  But the notion that scientifically minded people just see all life as organic robots is just wrong. It is reducing something very complex and layered to the barest minimum and most rididulous.

  I think you are taking the "organic robot" remark too personally. Logically the metaphor really works because we are just a bunch of complex components wired together with a power source that works for 70-80 years. It's not a put down to anyone, it's just the way they look at humanity. Sure they understand how to interact with people because they are people, but the world view is ultimately worrisome. Just because YOU can control yourself with this world view and still find humanity worth working with doesn't mean everybody else will. There is certainly a depopulation directive being played out by elites that exist on this planet. I would be willing to bet that most of them are secular mystics working with unknown sciences. It's just too logical to say if we kill off our population that we'll live further into the universal timeline. The ends justify the means argument becomes very attractive once God is removed from the equation. Otherwise you have to get the approval of God which is a process. I think your world view is dangerous, again, no offense, these are just my thoughts on the matter.

  -Sab
• 

  cofty

  Peer review is flawed because laypeople cannot reproduce top level science

  Its called peer review for a reason. You have to understand something before you can critique it.

  the argument that if it's beyond us we should not strive to understand it is foolish

  Indeed.
• 

  sizemik

  Falsification is negative outlook. . . . sab

  I think you're a bit hung up on the negative connotation of the word sab. I'll try an illustration . . .

  Think of a fact as a pure compound. A hypothesis may look a pure compound (fact), but the only way to guarantee it's purity is to put it through a filtering process. If no contaminants appear in the filter . . . the compound is pure. If contaminants exist, they can be identified and quantified as removable . . . or the impurity of the compound is confirmed and it is discarded. You can't purify it simply by adding more compound . . . the contaminants have to be found and dealt with. Falsification is a purification process in that respect.
• 

  still thinking

  Also technology will always be used as a weapon of mass destruction, which is NEGATIVE. You don't acknowledge the bad with the good because if you did, you'd see the bad outweighs the good...sab

  Ah...but sab. It is not the technology that is the problem. And the chances of there being a nuclear war seem more religious based than science based. In fact. Scientific method would NEVER cause a war. It would eliminate the cause based on lack of evidence.

  Mass devolution is NEGATIVE

  There is no indusputible evidence for this claim from what I can see. What mass devolution?

  Atheists don't ever say they are biological robots doomed for destruction becaues it's bad PR.

  This isn't true from my perspective...I do not consider human beings to be biological robots or doomed for destruction. I think there is always a possiblity that even if our planet cannot sustain the populaiton growth we may, in the future be able to inahabit other planets. Out technology is advancing at such rates this is not out of the question any more.

  It's flabbergasting to me that you can say that Intelligent Design is stupid because it would mean God is a monster and then you say that the life that God didn't create actually isn't negative.

  I can only assume this comment is for someone else. I haven't said this.

  Sorry, seem to be getting away from original topic.
• 

  sabastious

  Think of a fact as a pure compound. A hypothesis may look a pure compound (fact), but the only way to guarantee it's purity is to put it through a filtering process. If no contaminants appear in the filter . . . the compound is pure. If contaminants exist, they can be identified and quantified as removable . . . or the impurity of the compound is confirmed and it is discarded. You can't purify it simply by adding more compound . . . the contaminants have to be found and dealt with. Falsification is a purification process in that respect.

  I understand that purification process and I am an advocate of it. However, I am strongly against leaning on that falsification process while tackling the big questions like "were we created by an intelligence?" or "Will life be allowed to cease to exist?" Because the falsifications to these types of inquries are going to heavily lean on philosophy simply because the universe is so old and we are so young. So if the conclusions are going to be Science-Philosophy hybrids to end with, there is no reason to discount the opposite which would be Philosophy-Science.

  -Sab
• 

  ziddina

  (I'm way back on page #2... Catching up...)

  "Crabtree, a professor of pathology and developmental biology, suggested our intellectual peak came when humans were mostly nonverbal and were stressed out trying to think of ways to not get eaten by wild animals." Sizemik quoting Gerald Crabtree

  "I also think the article debunks the notion that belief in God is what dumbs man down; rather, it seems to be saying that reliance on science is the culprit. What do you think?" . . . AGuest, OP

  "I disagree. When you look at the possible time-frame covered (verbal communication in hominidae may be as old as 2.5M years), then this process has been going on much longer than the influence of science . . . ." Sizemik, page 2

  Oddly enough, MANY animals have primitive forms of VERBAL communication - birds, whales, dolphins, to name a few - and there's no indication that developing primitive forms of language negatively affected THEIR brain sizes.
• 

  sabastious

  Ah...but sab. It is not the technology that is the problem. And the chances of there being a nuclear war seem more religious based than science based. In fact. Scientific method would NEVER cause a war. It would eliminate the cause based on lack of evidence.

  I never said technology was the problem, I am saying the lack of accountability of the people who create it are the problem.

  This isn't true from my perspective...I do not consider human beings to be biological robots or doomed for destruction. I think there is always a possiblity that even if our planet cannot sustain the populaiton growth we may, in the future be able to inahabit other planets. Out technology is advancing at such rates this is not out of the question any more.

  You want to speak from a planetary viewpoint, but you failed to factor in the universal doom that looms before us all. We are either going to freeze, rip apart or a variety of other doomsday scenarios. There is no "happily ever after" when it comes to our cosmic future and most likely not our planetary future either (not even factoring in climate change). The only idea that is positive is that we MIGHT be able to escape this universe into another, but that doesn't really sound feasible to me. If traveling to the a new continent for the first time brings mass destruction through introducing foreign pathogens to a population, just think about inter-dimensional travel would do. You want to plop down in a new universe and be the sole cause for it's destruction? That sounds real nice.... It's ALL BAD when you remove the idea of God, it's plain and simple. You are just focusing on the positive when your ideology is actually ultimately negative because all life eventually is snuffed out. "We had a good run" that's the end of the atheist story. We start and end in silent Nothing. The article in the OP simply follows suit.

  -Sab
• 

  still thinking

  It's ALL BAD when you remove the idea of God, it's plain and simple...sab

  I do not see life this way. You appear to, and then seem to add god in to the straw man scenario to make it all better.

  The only idea that is positive is that we MIGHT be able to escape this universe into another..sab

  We would not have to escape our universe at all...maybe our solar system.

  I think this is getting off topic. So will not address this any further.
• 

  sabastious

  Its called peer review for a reason. You have to understand something before you can critique it.

  I do understand it, I know what peer review means. I am just showing the flaw in it (it can't be verified without secular knowledge and education), what would you say are the flaws in peer review Cofty?

  -Sab