The Big DebateIf you feel the need to get your teeth stuck right into a heavy debate on a subject you feel really passionate about, then this is the place to do so. Post about religion, politics, laws and all things juicy like that here.
Right, Nautal selection says that the fittest survive. They adapt to change in order to further the species. Those that dont adapt dont live on and so the strong ones reign supreme.
Now in the animal wrld this is pretty much still the case. if a whale has a stronger tail fin or whatever, its going to get to mate because its a strength. Those with tiny fins dont and so tiny fins become a thing of the past. Bad example but you get the idea.
But in the Human world, Natural selection doesnt exist anymore. Those that are strong and intelligent HELP the weak and so the Human race as a whole doesnt really change. The ration of strong and weak stays the same and so as a species, we are no better than 100 years ago.
Yes some have computers and longer lives,. but the weak dont, and so it all balances out to pretty much show that Humans arnt evolving anymore.
So my question, for the good of the Human Species, should we revert back to Natural selection.
This is really getting on my tits, you athist come with the same damn arguement again and again, the TF athists on this forum are just as bad as the religous ppl that beleive creationism is the truth.
We have already established amongst every reasonable beleiver that evolutionism is the method to which man emerged, but why does it have to be one or the other, does God have to create Adam off the bone of eve to be the God to which everyone beleives.
Physicians including Steven Hawkings have already proclaimed the possibility of a God, or a supernatural being able to create the conditions of the emergence of the universe as the mathmatics of the big bang is physically impossible, they called this being God because it symbolises to physicians a being that exists out of space and time that allowed the condition for a cosmic fission.
Now, the function of Religion has many functions, some good some bad, yes it is a tool of control, but to others it's an instrument of thanks giving, for others it is a code for a way to which we should treat each other, others use religion to give thanks to the miracle that allowed life where as if the mathematics was incorrect, twe would be alive today. Those who beleive that religion is just the creationist beleivers are just as ignorant as those controlled by religion.
this is a topic to talk about natural selection. if you wish to comment on natural seletion then please go ahead. but this wasnt made to continue the never ending debate about religion.
i have even removed the "offending" part to quell further outbursts
Natural selection coinciding (Sp?) with Darwin’s theory of evolution is well overrated once a sentient being becomes to our level of evolution natural selection gets cancelled out as in the animal kingdom there’s only really limited food etc.. we harvest food we have more than enough to spare and people have more than enough time to help if they choose to.
We also have feeling emotions which don't really apply to some species but I have seen ants help ants and dolphins help dolphins.
A lot of species are still living with there most primal instincts survival which ours only come into play when out life is set in danger which we can now override so to speak of.
this is a topic to talk about natural selection. if you wish to comment on nautal seletion then please go ahead. but tis wasnt made to continue the never ending debate about religion.
this is closesly linked to your thread topic, but I'm taking it another angle, why must it be natural selection or God, why does it have to be a 'heaven and hell' god. Why isn't a God capable of creating a world of natural selection?
Surely as ppl are now living longer we are evolving, & we dont need to have 12 kids in order for 1 or 2 to survive now either.
Ppl beleive that because of technology that we have ceased to evole, but we are evolving with the technology, as if we are evolving with nature. We just do not notic it because the process in relation to the time we have been aware of evolution has been minute, in relation to time.
this is closesly linked to your thread topic, but I'm taking it another angle, why must it be natural selection or God, why does it have to be a 'heaven and hell' god. Why isn't a God capable of creating a world of natural selection?
much nicer post than before you edited btw
i dont know 100% that some kind of being, be it a god or whatever, created life on this planet. i dont know if everything started as slime, or if they popped back ever few million years with an updated bios for the life that was here. i cant say either way for definate. any being capable of creating life from scratch, would surely be intelligent enough to factor in survival traits such as natural selection.
my question really isnt trying to be a dig at the religions or those that beleive or those that dont beleive. it is simply. Should the Humas Species revert to the way of living that has made other species evolve.
you said "why must it be natural selection or god". i would like to ask what you beleive. what is your opinion.
As animals if one intelligent group of sharks sees a stupid group of sharks. it doesnt go and get them some food. at what point in human evolution did we stop thinking like animals and start thinking as humans. Did we care that Africans were starving when we found out what Africa was? or did we make them into slaves? at what point did the civilised and "stronger" sector of the world stop thinking "hey, they are weak, lets abuse them" and start thinking "hold on, they are weak, but lets help them instead"
Africa is just one example, but for me a good one. We are intelligent enough to see that people are starving. Yet not intelligent enough to notice that they are one of the "weaker" parts of the Human species.
if we stopped taking care of the groups of Humans that havnt evolved into civilised state that cant take care of themselves, would the lives of the people suffering in the civilised groups be better? Who do you look after first, the man next to you who is at the same evolutionary stage or the man 5000 miles away who is essentialy not even in the dark ages.
i dont want to get into a slanging match Dieslow. id much rather have your opinions to talk about than have an argument.
i dont know 100% that some kind of being, be it a god or whatever, created life on this planet. i dont know if everything started as slime, or if they popped back ever few million years with an updated bios for the life that was here. i cant say either way for definate. any being capable of creating life from scratch, would surely be intelligent enough to factor in survival traits such as natural selection.
my question really isnt trying to be a dig at the religions or those that beleive or those that dont beleive. it is simply. Should the Humas Species revert to the way of living that has made other species evolve.
you said "why must it be natural selection or god". i would like to ask what you beleive. what is your opinion.
As animals if one intelligent group of sharks sees a stupid group of sharks. it doesnt go and get them some food. at what point in human evolution did we stop thinking like animals and start thinking as humans. Did we care that Africans were starving when we found out what Africa was? or did we make them into slaves? at what point did the civilised and "stronger" sector of the world stop thinking "hey, they are weak, lets abuse them" and start thinking "hold on, they are weak, but lets help them instead"
Africa is just one example, but for me a good one. We are intelligent enough to see that people are starving. Yet not intelligent enough to notice that they are one of the "weaker" parts of the Human species.
if we stopped taking care of the groups of Humans that havnt evolved into civilised state that cant take care of themselves, would the lives of the people suffering in the civilised groups be better? Who do you look after first, the man next to you who is at the same evolutionary stage or the man 5000 miles away who is essentialy not even in the dark ages.
i dont want to get into a slanging match Dieslow. id much rather have your opinions to talk about than have an argument.
Think the basic evolution was like......one cell organism....2cell........(loads more) then where slime but I can't remember the name for it.
Surely as ppl are now living longer we are evolving, & we dont need to have 12 kids in order for 1 or 2 to survive now either.
Mean you have highlighted my point. A man living in London now has an estimated lifespan of maybe 80 years instead of 40. thats evolution since we have learnt how to stop certain diseases etc thanks to technological advances in microscopes and penicillin and all that jazz.
But a man 5000 miles away who 5000 years ago would only live to 40, is still only living to 40.
Mean you have highlighted my point. A man living in London now has an estimated lifespan of maybe 80 years instead of 40. thats evolution since we have learnt how to stop certain diseases etc thanks to technological advances in microscopes and penicillin and all that jazz.
But a man 5000 miles away who 5000 years ago would only live to 40, is still only living to 40.
Stoping ourself from dying ith technology is technivally not Human evolution it's technological advancement, and you could argue we are interfearing with natural evolution by anoculations.
Stoping ourself from dying ith technology is technivally not Human evolution it's technological advancement, and you could argue we are interfearing with natural evolution by anoculations.
had we not evolved to make that technology we wouldnt have been able to save ourselves though. extending life isnt a direct result of evolution, but it is one of the offshoots of what is happening as we continue to evolve.
and yes, i suppose you could. But is evolving to a point where you know how to save lives any decent place to be if you cant use that information. Natural selection decides that a snail living next to a salt flat somewhere isnt going to have a particularly good life. However if that snail evolves to a point where it learns to put a show on before going onto the salt a sign of interfering with natural selection, or is it a sign of evolution.
is evolution only classed as evolution if you just become immune to the disease without the use of the knowledge you have learnt by evolving.
Natural selection requires that there is an environmental pressure to change, in order to cull the 'weak' and promote the 'strong'. Note that these terms are wholly dependent on what is 'weak/strong' at surviving, they don't simple mean strong, or large, or anything like that. And you are right, these days there is no envrionmental pressure to change, because the 'weak' who would have died in primitive times can now have 7 kids and have them raised by someone even if they die.
But what you forget is that humanity has only been this way for a few hundred, or few thousand (if you're being generous) years, which is really an insignificant time in evolutionary terms. Even if we did still live in a primitive society, it would still take hundreds of thousands of years for us to change significantly. Consider that we have roamed the planet for millions of years already, subject to natural selection, yet still have two legs, two arms, same organs, etc.
Mean, we are living longer because of nutrition, hygiene and medicine, our genes haven't changed. Thousands of years ago we still had the potential to be healthy, 6 foot, long-lasting peope, but we weren't because of lack of the above factors.
Unless we enforce an environmental pressure on ourselves then the human genotype will stay the same for thousands of years to come.
Obviously this only applies to more advanced society. Remote tribes are probably still subject to some degree of natural selection ie. if a man is born who is too weak or small to hunt then he'll just die unless the others save him.
Humans evolution has not changed in over 200-300 thousand years
Ive heard otherwise, do you know why the Kenyans and Ethiopians can run longer distances than others?, because the harsh landscape ensured that they needed an extra edge for survival, they have gene that makes them run for much longer and at higher altitudes. Hell the purpose of colour is an evolutionary process, Black skin is designed to withstand hot weather without burning, while white ppl have more hair on their body to preserve heat and a bigger nose to allow better air intake and cold protection. This is why Black ppl in England are gradually turning whiter, as they are evoling to the conditions.
Although medicine does kinda mess the evolutionary process abit, cause now 'defictive' children live longer and get to reproduce, along with those who have weaker immune systems than others. But ive heard we are evolving with tchnology, our brains are apparently getting bigger and our way of reasoning is developing every generation.
Although medicine does kinda mess the evolutionary process abit, cause now 'defictive' children live longer and get to reproduce, along with those who have weaker immune systems than others. But ive heard we are evolving with tchnology, our brains are apparently getting bigger and our way of reasoning is developing every generation.
nope did not know that, yea whenever I am Ill I prefer to let my body handle it rather than run and get some medicine, helps me in the long run.
I'm not too sure about black people getting whiter due to evolution Dieslowuk.
Something like that would require the environmental pressure of darker black people dying and lighter black people being slightly better suited to our environment and surviving, which isn't the case. I think inter-racial breeding is probably why you see less 'black' people.
Ive heard otherwise, do you know why the Kenyans and Ethiopians can run longer distances than others?, because the harsh landscape ensured that they needed an extra edge for survival, they have gene that makes them run for much longer and at higher altitudes.
that is also in part due to the fact that the men running faster than the others meant they got a lot more female attention (i saw a documentry on it) and so they did their thing and so there are now a few more ith that running gene. and so on until most of the tribe/clan/country/whatever have that gene.
ahh ok, so basicaly evolution occurs because it HAS to. a parrot has a beak for cracking nuts and sudddenly the nuts stop growing and there is only frogs to eat. so pver time the parrots evolve a beak designed to eat frogs and not nuts.
so in that case, with the amount of carbon dioxide that is all over the place, would we eventualy learn to live on a lower oxygen content or even a nil oxygen content. Obviously the larger problem is the increase in temp, melting the caps and drowning us all. but then would we all get webbed feet?
Natural Selection
Linear Mode
