Evolutionary Theory

[cheesy999]

yes, of course humanity is violent and war-like on it's own.

but again, religion is the only one that allows otherwise normal, well-balanced
and sane people to do insane things. they are not warmongers, they would
not fight over science or politics. they would fight over their god though.

and maybe their original books don't say that, but their texts have been
ignored since day one. their leaders and the state of their religion is such
that moderates back extremists, allowing them to further press their
violent agendas, using religion as a tool.

religion is not the cause, i know. it enables it.

still, religion is only the official cause in around 1/3 of wars and even then we know its used by leaders as an excuse to get other things (oil money etc) and for every 1 terrorist there are several 100000 perfectly reasonable people, religion is not a bad thing, its just used as an excuse by bad people when they do bad things

 

[TheMailMan78]

yes, of course humanity is violent and war-like on it's own.

but again, religion is the only one that allows otherwise normal, well-balanced
and sane people to do insane things. they are not warmongers, they would
not fight over science or politics. they would fight over their god though.

and maybe their original books don't say that, but their texts have been
ignored since day one. their leaders and the state of their religion is such
that moderates back extremists, allowing them to further press their
violent agendas, using religion as a tool.

religion is not the cause, i know. it enables it.

Thats simply not true. Its interpretation of religion that causes people to go nuts and you are telling me its exclusive to religion only? Really? Why did Pol Pot kill those Cambodians again?

 

[digibucc]

The only trait that was irrevocably selected was the one that died. Do you understand my point better now?

much better. it is contrary to my understanding, but makes sense for sure.

i will have to put some more thought into this! awesome!

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this was going to happen when you bring up evolution. It's why I felt this sub was better suited for GN. Hell this is why I why I was always so reluctant to join GN. I don't want to know what you all really think about life shit haha.

 

[cheesy999]

i see i said only, that was my mistake.

my point is that it holds more power than any other,
and more often then not, it is based on religion.

i still feel that most wars are not based on religion, leaders just use it as an excuse to get people to fight

Person 1:why should we go to war again
Person 2:because God wants it
Person 1: ok
Person 2(quietly): lots of money, i like money

 

[digibucc]

Thats simply not true. Its interpretation of religion that causes people to go nuts and you are telling me its exclusive to religion only? Really? Why did Pol Pot kill those Cambodians again?

i see i said only, that was my mistake.

my point is that it holds more power than any other,
and more often then not, it is based on religion.

and i see where we are getting confused. i see religion as the system
itself, with interpretation included. without interpretation, they are just
pretty ideas that don't go anywhere.

it's the human element that makes religion, and our own violence that stirs it.
we use it as a tool to suit our own ends. i know all this.

my point would more accurately be stated as such:

religion is the one section of society that on large cannot be questioned.
politics, science, sports - there are numbers and ways to find proof,
religion seeks to answer such large questions with no accurate way of
confirming the answer - if you are ok with that, i believe you are more
likely to transfer that acceptence of belief without proof to other parts
of your life.

you aren't taught at birth to root for a specific team, or believe a specific
theory. but many people are taught to believe in something they can never
know for sure, with all their hearts, or they go to hell.

how can that NOT cause conflict?

 

[TheMailMan78]

i see i said only, that was my mistake.

my point is that it holds more power than any other,
and more often then not, it is based on religion.

No religion is the most dramatized because its the most deviated cause. People expect politics to kill people. They don't expect followers of the good book. Whatever that good book is. The Bible, Koran, ect. to do so.

Kinda like when you hear a mom killing her own kids. Its more shocking then most murders.

 

[digibucc]

No religion is the most dramatized because its the most deviated cause. People expect politics to kill people. They don't expect followers of the good book. Whatever that good book is. The Bible, Koran, ect. to do so.

Kinda like when you hear a mom killing her own kids. Its more shocking then most murders.

that is a really good point.

 

[cheesy999]

you aren't taught at birth to root for a specific team, or believe a specific
theory. but many people are taught to believe in something they can never
know for sure, with all their hearts, or they go to hell.

how many people vote for a certain political party cause they grew up doing it?

@lan derf i Also think we should move the discussion to a new thread cause allthough its still vaguely on topic it seams to be a bit too far out for most peoples likeing - i see no problem with the actual argument though, theres no trolling or anything, just a philosophical discussion (although one that could do with its own thread)

 

[Mr McC]

Pick up any major newspaper and read it from start to finish: therein lies the greatest challenge to any theory involving evolution.

 

[digibucc]

agreed, it should end here.

bene had some good points, so i still have thinking to do

 

[cheesy999]

Pick up any major newspaper and read it from start to finish: therein lies the greatest challenge to any theory involving evolution.

i heard reading the daily mail lowers your IQ (and i agree)

i wonder what the newspapers think about evolution? (can't be bothered to read one)

 

[SaiZo]

I might be very wrong, but I heard somewhere that "evolution is not about life, its about death", i.e. when one race "dies out" to make way for the new one - almost like the race before homosapiens or something like that. Think it was on National Geographic.

 

[digibucc]

I might be very wrong, but I heard somewhere that "evolution is not about life, its about death", i.e. when one race "dies out" to make way for the new one - almost like the race before homosapiens or something like that. Think it was on National Geographic.

that goes to what bene was saying, where the real selection is weeding out the negative
mutations.

which makes a lot of sense. i still kinda see benign as just slipping by - but every time
a negative mutation doesn't spread, it has been selected. i like it

 

[cheesy999]

that goes to what bene was saying, where the real selection is weeding out the negative
mutations.

agreed, you will still survive with a gene that lets you run 1mph faster, but you will die if a gene makes you lose your legs

 

[digibucc]

agreed, you will still survive with a gene that lets you run 1mph faster, but you will die if a gene makes you lose your legs

sure - but evolution rarely makes you lose something that you have already evolved.

and the more i think, it seems both positive and negative are selected.

you can't ignore the fact that positive mutations can make it easier
to spread your DNA, therefore it was selected positively.

 

[TheMailMan78]

sure - but evolution rarely makes you lose something that you have already evolved.

and the more i think, it seems both positive and negative are selected.

you can't ignore the fact that positive mutations can make it easier
to spread your DNA, therefore it was selected positively.

Again see the saber tooth tiger. Them fangs were VERY positive until they became a negative

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

What interests me is if some humans have cancer fighting immune systems then when did that first show up? Is it something you'd find in a percentage of all mammals or just people? Was it an adaptation not fully integrated into the species due to short life spans making it unneeded?

 

[digibucc]

Again see the saber tooth tiger. Them fangs were VERY positive until they became a negative

too true. but that's more in line with our own artificial selection - the fangs
would still be a positive if we didn't choose to kill them for it.

So we got back on topic ourselves? I'm impressed. Too bad we couldn't do that for the piracy thread.

What interests me is if some humans have cancer fighting immune systems then when did that first show up? Is it something you'd find
in a percentage of all mammals or just people? Was it an adaptation not fully integrated into the species due to short life spans making it unneeded?

yeah, i was worried too. i did not want my first thread to ruin the sci-tech forum.
according to what i've read, cancer is relatively new evolutionarily speaking. and
why did some immunity show up? same as any other mutation, no reason. totally random
until it provided a benefit.

 

[TheMailMan78]

too true. but that's more in line with our own artificial selection - the fangs
would still be a positive if we didn't choose to kill them for it.

We didn't. We killed off the use of those fangs. Taking down the mammoth. Evolution could not keep up with man in that case.

 

[digibucc]

We didn't. We killed off the use of those fangs. Taking down the mammoth. Evolution could not keep up with man in that case.

ahhh, i see your point. there is the natural pressure, us. not by conscience decision
to change a lifeform, which would be artificial, but by simply living, we effect our environment,
and therefore, other being's evolution.

random as in it didn't happen FOR a specific reason. maybe because of one, but it is not working toward some image of "evolved"

 

[Mr McC]

We didn't. We killed off the use of those fangs. Taking down the mammoth. Evolution could not keep up with man in that case.

As far as I'm aware, the most recent theories on the reason for the disappearance of the mammoth point to a second big asteroid evidenced in the amount of metal debris in tusks and the corresponding strata, which is not to say that we didn't force a large number off clifftops.

 

[TheMailMan78]

As far as I'm aware, the most recent theories on the reason for the disappearance of the mammoth point to a second big asteroid evidenced in the amount of metal debris in tusks and the corresponding strata, which is not to say that we didn't force a large number off clifftops.

I haven't heard that one yet. If that were the case then all elephants would be extinct I think.

 

[WhiteLotus]

Evolution is simply a change that is passed down to successive generations, over a long period of time.

These changes are random (genetically), selective (bigger males breed more with willing females), or pressure (no water, lack of water kills the ones that can not live without it).

 

[cheesy999]

Quote: Originally Posted by LAN_deRf_HA
So we got back on topic ourselves? I'm impressed. Too bad we couldn't do that for the piracy thread.

What interests me is if some humans have cancer fighting immune systems then when did that first show up? Is it something you'd find
in a percentage of all mammals or just people? Was it an adaptation not fully integrated into the species due to short life spans making it unneeded?

Evolution of a thread, in full view, that and i'm not talking to mailman when i can see W1zzards name glowing red in 'who reading this' part of the page.

don't want two infractions for flaming in 2 days

I'd imagine the people who mutated cancer immunity lived longer and had more children then those that didn't