Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
If a species is starving, it's not "the next logical evolutionary step" for them to require less nourishment, the next step is for that species to become extinct.
So are humans becoming extinct? Also, any answers to the other questions I asked in that post? I'm not trying to start an argument, I am really interested in hearing what the people on this thread have to say about this. It's always been a question I've had, ever since I first learned about evolution.
Most likely humans are doomed to extinction. It would be the height of arrogance to think we can outsmart mother nature.Micro-organisms didn't evolve into humans in the way you infer. And current micro-organisms have evolved to their "fittest" point to assure their survival.
Ken said: "Micro-organisms didn't evolve into humans in the way you infer. And current micro-organisms have evolved to their "fittest" point to assure their survival."OK - but whatever way some organism, somewhere, evolved into humans, my question is, when did that stop, and why? Why is the only way another human can come about now is through conception and birth and not by evolution? If evolution is still taking place over thousands of years, shouldn't there be humans and animals in various states of evolution at this point in time?
If things evolve "to their fittest point to assure their survival" does that mean that humans are now at their fittest point, since we have obviously stopped evolving?
Why haven't humans been able to "adapt" and evolve in such a way as to prevent cancer, birth defects, etc? Shouldn't our genetic material have had time to become immune ("fit") to these and other debiliations?
Maria wrote: "So are humans becoming extinct? Also, any answers to the other questions I asked in that post? I'm not trying to start an argument, I am really interested in hearing what the people on this threa..."The real answer is 'we do not know'. The Human evolution theory is not as strong as it was previously thought to be, and there is so little evidence for it.
It's about time we looked in other directions.
I respect all religions and those who choose to believe. I was a Catholic, but I now practice Wicca. I find this suits my beliefs better. As for science, its all around us, we can't deny it or live without it, therefore we should learn from it, but also remember to be morally aware in our use of it.
Humans haven't stopped evolving and neither have all the other creatures on this planet. Chris, what do you mean by the human evolution theory? Evolution pertains to all creatures, not just humans. Also, the amount of evidence for the evolution of humans is massive and continues to grow. In what other direction would you suggest the scientists should look?
For those interested in human evolution, the MOOC website www.coursera.org is offering a free on-line university course on human evolution (starts in a few months).
@Maria, evolution happens with subtle changes in the DNA over extremely long time frames ie, one can't observe it as it's happening.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: Since stuff like us did just happen, so I'm not sure how you can say it can't. ..."
A monkey did not write the works of Shakespeare and we did not just happen."
and the proof that we did not just happen is...?
So, Elaine - if humans haven't stopped evolving - what will we be next? Where is the prototype of the ever-evolving human? We all look the same to me. None of my questions have been answered- which does not surprise me - considering the newbies here. Where are my old friends? Shannon, hazel, cerebus, Travis, Gary....your thoughts, please!!By the way, has anyone here read Kurt Vonnegut's Galapagos? Reverse evolution ...it could happen......
Jean wrote: "Have you ever noticed that even babies have distinct personalities? How is this explained scientifically? I ask this with no guile."Good point!
Why would you think humans have stopped evolving? Evolutionary changes are small and happen at the DNA level (as Ken already commented, so someone did try to answer your question). There are plenty of "prototypes" (whatever that means) in the human lineage. Some you might have heard about: the australopithicenes, Neanderthals (a lot of controversy with this extinct species), Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, etc. If you are truly interested and want more erudite answers to your questions, make a search on this website for books on human evolution. I'm sure you will find it fascinating to read about the research and the archeological finds.
Bunk. Evolution is just another unproved theory. Makes absolutely no sense.
Why would I think that humans stopped evolving? Um, maybe because there have been no significant changes in the human race recently.
And , Elaine. Although I appreciate your input - where are my peeps??
What do you mean by recent? Evolutionary change for humans is very slow and occurs over hundreds of thousands of years. Let me give you one example of evolutionary change in humans. Today, about 35% of humans are lactose tolerant, mostly people of European descent. This mutation at the DNA level took about 20000 years. This mutation is an example of evolutionary change. These subtle mutations didn't suddenly end. The mutation of viruses and drug-resistant bacteria are other examples of evolution. Please do some research on-line and you will see many more (and better, I'm sure) examples of evolution.
Maria, maybe your peeps are doing some research on human evolution! I personally find it to be a fascinating topic. Years ago I did a lot of reading about the discoveries of the different hominid bones and the theories about this early ancestors. Now, with this discussion and my search for recent books on this topic, I am eager to get back into learning more about the recent discoveries. So, thank you!
The Smithsonian has an excellent website on human evolution. Maria, it might have some of the answers you are looking for by people who are certainly more qualified and knowledgeable than I am!
Wow...evolution is an interesting conversation. Science vs religion...scarier still. I really am on the fence with this one. I have faith (saying o have "my faith" sounds strange) I also can see through our history how we have evolved wether good or bad, matters not... If you are looking for how humans have evolved in the last 100 years alone....We are taller
We are fatter
We have new diseases (SARS, AIDS just 2 little examples)
We have more knowledge of the universe
We are understanding the capacity of the brain and use more and in many cases less of it.
We live in societies that know how the rest of the world lives...
Geez! Even I, whom really is not even close to understanding science sees that we have evolved...again, wether for good or not, it doesn't matter.
Maria wrote: "And , Elaine. Although I appreciate your input - where are my peeps??"As people have mentioned evolution can result in tiny changes and mostly occurs across generations if not longer stretches of time, so I don't see how anyone can say we aren't evolving.
We might be.
Since evolution also works on the basis of 'just good enough to keep you alive' any changes that may have occurred have no certainty of being noticeable, let alone impressive enough to 'wow' the non-belivers or cause an 'Ah-ha!' moment.
Bit like trying to watch grass growing. You see when it's short, you see when it's tall, but who actually notices the process?
Then you get into if evolution is in reaction to changes in the environment and we are the only species able to have such a level of control over our environment, so who knows what's going on.
Also keep in mind, that I was a C+ student and that I am only speaking in the loosest, most general terms about evolution.
Though, it is kind of nice to be thought of as somebody's 'peep'.
Michelle wrote: "Wow...evolution is an interesting conversation. Science vs religion...scarier still. I really am on the fence with this one. I have faith (saying o have "my faith" sounds strange) I also can see th..."Actually, being taller is the only thing on that list that could be considered a possible evolutionary change.
New diseases are the diseases evolving or mutating, not humans and knowledge and understanding aren't evolutionary, though some of the differences in our brains from our ancient ancestors may have been evolution.
and fatter is not evolution. That's just too much Ben and Jerry's.
Jean wrote: "I think we definitely need both. As a religious girl, I have a strong faith in Deity and in His creations...science exists to prove His existence, for all things in this world and out point to Him..."I agree we need BOTH. However, neither should supersede the other. Also, if our Creator (or Intelligent Designer) can do anything, why would it be inconceivable that He started out with a Big Bang? Once, there was nothing, and then in a unit of time that only an omnipotent Creator can fathom, there was a whole lot of something. I don't believe that chance had anything to do with it.
I'm going to check out the Smithsonian website Elaine mentioned - and also do some personal research about genetics and evolution. I am also fascinated by this subject.Thanks, everyone! And I agree about the Ben & Jerry's, Travis! Although in my case it's pizza and wine.
A good source: "What Evolution Is" by E.Mayr
For those of you that enjoy this topic/debate, I think you would really enjoy my novel
It explores the hard science of evolution/creation in a thriller involving genetic engineering and a selective population control conspiracy. Think Dan Brown meets Michael Crichton. I hope somebody out there will give it a read and post a review!
Also...check out this website if you have an interest in Intelligent Design theory and the science that supports ithttp://www.discovery.org/
Intelligent Design: I looked at the website in Steve's post as well as other websites to get both sides of the issue. My conclusion: intelligent design provides supernatural explanations for what scientist would say "we don't know yet". Intelligent Design fails to meet the criteria required to be considered scientific. Judges in the US have ruled that it can't be taught in the schools because it isn't a science. The science that supposedly supports it does not follow the peer-reviewed procedures (other than the people at Discovery who came up with the idea of Intelligent Design). My conclusion: Intelligent Design is just a synonym for Creationism. It's not science.
Elaine wrote: "Intelligent Design: I looked at the website in Steve's post as well as other websites to get both sides of the issue. My conclusion: intelligent design provides supernatural explanations for what ..."Intelligent design, or as I like to call it: religion.
not to mention that it's also a huge oxymoron.
More like 'poorly thought out and then rushed through production' design.
Very true. Intelligent Design is a synonym for creationism. This is the point. The underlying theme of my book is that believing in naturalistic causes for the origin of the universe and life on earth takes as much faith as believing in creationism. There are huge gaps in the "science" of naturalism and evolution, but we have all been led to believe that these theories of origin are proven facts. Just because you label something as "science" doesn't make it true, and vice versa with issues of faith. Anyway, this stuff is always controversial and creates great conflict...which is why I incorporated it into my novel. If you have a passion for either side of this issue, you'd really enjoy the read.
Steve, I'm not a huge fan of science fiction but I will keep an eye out for your book.A few questions about Intelligent Design: what role does the Intelligent Designer play? Just set off the Big Bang or continue to be involved throughout the history of the universe?
Intelligent design suggests that the universe and the origin of life was not the result of a random accident. There is too much order in the universe and too much complex information coded into the simplest living cell for it to come about by random chance. These guys aren't saying that a literal Biblical creation is true, but they definitely support the idea of a Creator.
Do the Intelligent Design people have an explanation for the origin of the Intelligent Designer? Do the ID people believe in the big bang theory?
Then we get into the idea that if it takes a creator, then the creator him/her/itself must be complex enough to need a creator as well, so we must be just one domino in a long row of them.So, religious...I mean creationist folks get their 'there must be a reason', but that reason is we were just next in line to be created.
Science is what moves the universe. Without science we would be back to the ice age!
Maria wrote: "At what point did evolution of humans stop? If evolution occurs when things need to be made better or for the species to survive, is that saying that humans need no further improvement?How about..."
Evolution as I understand it, occurs through pressures in The environment that eliminate those individuals who have not adapted to the pressures. Most species evolve more rapidly when ther are predators in their environment or when changes occur in the environment that make survival difficult. Our ability to use technology to adapt to various environments, along with having almost no predators, and the fact that we have developed medical means rather than adaptations to overcome many fatal disease means that humans don't need to evolve at previous rates.
Our technology may have actually all but ended or at least frozen human evolution until the next catastrophe.
Elaine wrote: "For those interested in human evolution, the MOOC website www.coursera.org is offering a free on-line university course on human evolution (starts in a few months)."Thanks @Elaine for this sharing. I'm waiting for this course impatiently !
Another MOOC course about Becoming Human: Anthropology will start next week on Open2study.com.
Clay wrote: "Our technology may have actually all but ended or at least frozen human evolution until the next catastrophe."Hi Clay, there is also another explanation - that human evolution hasn't stopped.
First where is the evidence indicating that human evolution has indeed stopped? Just because we haven't developed extra arms or mutant superpowers in the last couple of decades doesn't mean evolution has stopped. It takes thousands of generations to evolve traits that are distinct enough to look "different". We know that the American and European continents are still drifting apart, but no one expects that gradual change to be really significant within their own lifetime do they? The assumption that humans has stopped evolving is based on the conceit that change should be visible and obvious to ourselves no matter how brief our existence in comparison to the process observed, and the hubris that we are the pinnacle of species.
Secondly, evolution isn't about change, or about becoming better. Evolution doesn't have a direction or a goal. If the environment doesn't change then there is no pressure for the species to change, at least in visible ways. However, since we are surrounded by evolving and mutating diseases and parasites our own evolution needs to compete with that pressure. So a species may not appear to physically change but may need to do a lot of running just to 'stay still' in terms of survival and adaptation.
Importantly though humans have been shown to still be evolving. A very short time ago humans developed agriculture, and we have been evolving rapidly to cope with the sudden change in our environment. For example Dairy farming developed mainly in Europe and the West, which has resulted in Europeans evolving the adaptation of being lactose-tolerant due to our drinking of milk (and its derivatives) into adulthood. 80% or more of people of European descent are now adapted to digest milk in adulthood, compared to lower rates for populations were diary agriculture did not feature as prominently.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_...
Unfortunately, evolution as a process is easily misunderstood, and a lot of pseudoscience is based on attacking misunderstandings or even outright misrepresentations of the process.
If you want to learn more, I'd suggest a decent scientific education preferably. Alternatively try http://www.talkorigins.org/ which is a good site to learn the answers to those frequently cited "problems" with evolution that are actually only problems with a flawed understanding of evolution.
Amal, thank you for sharing the website for another MOOC course. (I am addicted to MOOCs!) Another MOOC website is www.edx.org and it will also be doing a course on Human Evolution starting on September 25th. I've signed up for the one on open2study.com as it focuses on evolution and neurobiology: fascinating!!
Elaine wrote: "Amal, thank you for sharing the website for another MOOC course. (I am addicted to MOOCs!) Another MOOC website is www.edx.org and it will also be doing a course on Human Evolution starting on Se..."Keep yourself more addicted then, here is a list of all upcoming MOOC courses http://www.mooc-list.com/
Enjoy ;)
It's rather ironic that I spotted this group topic today...today of all days. I have just come home from my son's house (it's his birthday) where we had bantered for hours on a similar topic. Our heated debate began as it has always begun, with my stubborn scientist-son demanding to know, "How can you be so entrenched in science and still believe in God?" And I answered as I have always answered, "God and Science are indivisible; to understand that, you have to unchain God from Religion." We're both on the same page when it comes to religion...and it's not flattering, so I'll leave it at that. Where we part company is about God, not about God's existence or non-existence--we never get that far--but about whether God integrates with Science or integrates with Religion. My statement, "God & Science are indivisible," brings vociferous dissent from both sides, Scientists & Religious alike. Well GOOD! Glad I can unite everybody on one thing, even though it's to holler at me that I'm wrong. (I can take it.) So to answer the question posed in this discussion, I would rather live in a world of God & Science where I can work on the links that prove their cohesion. Living in a world of organized dogmas...well, that would only prove hell.
Totally agree with your proof of hell.
Steve wrote: "Intelligent design suggests that the universe and the origin of life was not the result of a random accident. There is too much order in the universe and too much complex information coded into th..."Steve, your book sounds like my type of reading...so that's what I'll do. (I wish you had an excerpt posted on Goodreads. Since joining, I've purchased quite a few books, and some of them...well...it wasn't a wise buy. While the story was okay, the writing could have used an editor. But if you don't have an excerpt, that's okay, I'll take a leap of faith.)
Wendy Joyce
Religion is just a fairy tale.
Wendy wrote: "It's rather ironic that I spotted this group topic today...today of all days. I have just come home from my son's house (it's his birthday) where we had bantered for hours on a similar topic. Our h..."Ironically I agree with you to a certain extent. If you could indeed provide evidence of the existence of a god or gods beyond reasonable doubt, then you would indeed separate it from religion and it would become a science. However, to truly be able to provide such evidence you would have to be willing to explore the possibility that there is no such entity and see if your evidence supports that. If you start with the assumption that a particular god exists and then "work on the links that prove their cohesion" you are not practicing science, you are practicing religion, even if it's dressed in a lab-coat.
Gary wrote: "Wendy wrote: "It's rather ironic that I spotted this group topic today...today of all days. I have just come home from my son's house (it's his birthday) where we had bantered for hours on a simila..."No, not quite. It's not possible to disprove God's existence...or, for that matter, disprove the existence of quite a lot of things. A prehistoric fish, for example. According to what we know about its biological structure and its environmental requirements to survive, we can logically deduce that it became extinct a billion years ago. That logical deduction, however, is a theory. No matter how compelling the data or how thorough the research, it's still just a theory. We can't prove it as a fact because we can't drain the ocean. (And then, lo and behold, that damn fish surfaced.)
Similarly, it's not possible to disprove God's existence, but that impossibility doesn't change its relationship to Science. Religion is a organized structure of tenets governing the behaviors of a group of people...and is completely irrelevant. If anything, Religion muddies the question of God's existence by propounding ludicrous ideas. Then the Science community replies with full condescension, which only fuels the discord.
The depth of this discord, I greatly underestimated when I wrote The Anomaly. The underpinning theory I wanted to test--and I'm about to divulge one of the answers to a contest I intend to hold later, but oh well--was this: If what goes around, comes around, how would that work? It's mathematically impossible if we lived only once...or even a thousand times. But it might work if you add "infinite" into the equation...so I began writing, not to teach or preach, but merely to entertain from this premise.
With that goal in mind, I excised the dry, unnecessary facts about particles. That was easy, though it made my bigger problem more evident: How do I depict an afterlife without using religious terms; God, Heaven, Hell, Satan. To borrow those terms would be to mislead a reader by suggesting a religious premise...in the least. Those terms elicit a preconceived image or imply a particular concept that conflict with the story.
Regardless of my veering away from religious terms, some people drew a parallel anyway...and then were angry when that concept didn't confirm the morality lesson they tied to it.
Consider this comment by a well-respected reviewer: "....even Zia's lies aren't unequivocally condemned." That speaks volumes, not about the book, but about her expectation. "Right is right, wrong is wrong; readers want that confirmed not blurred."
Silly me, I just wanted to entertain.
Wendy JoyceThe Anomaly
Wendy wrote: "That logical deduction, however, is a theory. No matter how compelling the data or how thorough the research, it's still just a theory. We can't prove it as a fact because we can't drain the ocean. (And then, lo and behold, that damn fish surfaced.)""Just a theory" is not a scientific argument. Every "fact" in existence is "just a theory" (or indeed an axiom). The fact that the computer screen exists in front of you is "just a theory". You can sense it through the light it emits, or you can reach out and touch it, but you cannot prove that it exists with 100% certainty. The screen may actually be a clever technological projection, or it could be a vivid hallucination that you are having while in "reality" your body is somewhere else.
Using the phrase "it's just a theory" is pointless in science, as everything from the 'Theory of Gravity' the 'Theory of Relativity', the 'Theory of Electromagnetism' are all "just theories". If you try to throw just one out with such a spurious reason then you are throwing out science as a while.
Certainly there are many scientific 'hypotheses' that may or may not be true (or have some degree of truth) but they are not theories. 'Theories' in science have (a) a wealth of evidence supporting them and (b) have not been disproved.
Wendy wrote: "Similarly, it's not possible to disprove God's existence, but that impossibility doesn't change its relationship to Science."
True. Things being "impossible to disprove" is nothing to do with science. For example it is impossible to prove that we ourselves exist, or that existence actually "exists" beyond our individual perception of this. We accept as an axiom that reality exists and that we exist to experience it, so we can actually make reasonable deductions.
However, this does not change a god's relationship to science. Science doesn't work by postulating everything that might exist and then disproving them, it looks for evidence of something, then formulates a hypothesis, then tests said hypothesis until it graduates to a theory, or is discarded.
If the hypothesis of the existence of a God is not a "theory" itself, it should be tested, confirmed or discarded. Anything else is not science.
Wendy wrote: "Religion is a organized structure of tenets governing the behaviors of a group of people...and is completely irrelevant. If anything, Religion muddies the question of God's existence by propounding ludicrous ideas. Then the Science community replies with full condescension, which only fuels the discord."
I would disagree with the narrow definition of religion, especially since a great proportion of adherents are demonstrably not "governed" by those tenets but instead either use said tenets to justify their governance of others by their own preferred standard, and conveniently disregard tenets that they personally do not think are right, based either on consensual or personal authority cloaked in the guise of 'revelation'. This is why religions schism, fragment and are ultimately divisive, while scientific inquiry is by its nature prone to eventual agreement and consensus.
The assumption that any form of gods or "supernatural" forces exist without clear independently confirmed evidence is following a specific tenet, i.e. the tenet that a (usually male and for a supreme being, surprisingly human-like in attitude) god exists is a tenet adhered to therefore is a religion.
As for the scientific community responding with "full condescension" I do not think so, for a start there are still a large proportion of scientists with some form of personal faith, and the attitude of the majority is that of Gould's "Non-overlapping magisteria" which is effectively a non-aggression pact with religion that is pretty much ignored by the religious side and in my opinion tantamount to intellectual surrender on the side of scientists.
What scientists have likely responded with said "condescension" too is to the attacks on established scientific process using extremely unscientific methodology, for example the "it's only a theory" misrepresentation which is appealing to those without a scientific education because they do not understand the specific technical meaning of the term as used in science. To my mind that is not condescension of science, but a condescension on behalf on the people who are attacking science because they feel it threatens their religious tenets.
Wendy wrote: "The depth of this discord, I greatly underestimated when I wrote The Anomaly. The underpinning theory I wanted to test--and I'm about to divulge one of the answers to a contest I intend to hold later, but oh well--was this: If what goes around, comes around, how would that work? It's mathematically impossible if we lived only once...or even a thousand times. But it might work if you add "infinite" into the equation...so I began writing, not to teach or preach, but merely to entertain from this premise."
Entertainment is good, ideas, stories and even myths have important parts to play in stretching the mind and imagination.
"What goes around comes around" is not really a theory though, to be honest it's barely a hypothesis, if you don't define what "what" is and what direction "going around" is. It's a nice little saying, but that relies on a rather strong culture understanding of its deeper meaning.
Then you immediately put "infinity" into the mix. Speaking as a long study of mathematics and physics, if you use infinity you can prove almost anything making it completely useless as a method. The idea of "infinite divisibility" of a distance leads to Achilles never being able to catch up to a "speeding" tortoise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno'..., a simple equation calculation like
X=Y
Therefore X-Y=0
2X-2Y=0
Therefore 2X-2Y=X-Y or 2(X-Y)=(X-Y)
Dividing by (X-Y) gives us;
2=1
(Divide by zero/infinity error)
Whenever infinities appear in a calculation it usually indicates that something is fundamentally wrong with it.
I don't think its fair of me to further critique the rest of what you addressed without actually reading your book, but those are the initial problems I saw from your reference (which you of course may have already addressed in the book).
Wendy wrote: "Silly me, I just wanted to entertain."
Indeed entertainment is an important way of opening a closed mind to new ideas. However, it is important to remember that sometimes a story is just a story. The alleged parables of Jesus are one example, but then so is the story of Jesus itself. If the story inspires one to kindness and consideration, does it matter if the story isn't true? In fact when we know a story isn't true it is a lot easier to be inspired by the good and repulsed by the bad.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
How about people who consistently don't have enough to eat, that are starving. The next logical evolutionary step, for survival, would be for humans not to require certain nutrients or to be able to do without nourishment for longer periods.
Just an example - but if microscopic organisms evolved into human beings (1) why aren't they still doing it? and (2) when and why did it stop at humans in the form we are now?