|
0 registered members (),
744
guests, and 5
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: hyde5659]
#78041
06/17/06 23:22
06/17/06 23:22
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
You missed the point. Evolution makes things like rape, and doing whatever you feel like, sound ok. Or not as bad, what have you.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/17/06 23:23.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: hyde5659]
#78042
06/17/06 23:35
06/17/06 23:35
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,655
testDummy
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,655
|
I suppose, I, like many others, enjoy "underdog", "against-all-odds" stories (it might seem to be you against a vast army of intellectuals, some with nothing but time + ridiculous amounts of resources, to study, research, test, experiment, explore, analyze, ponder, theorize, etc.), but I don't really intend to encourage what might seem to be, from some perspectives, destructive behavior. Quote:
10). Love. What possible good is the evolution of love? Love contains many traits that are the EXACT OPPOSITE of evolution. Self sacrifice certainly being a big one. I can't imagine losing for the benefit of others would be selected for quite easily. You can't argue from the fact that love exists. Try arguing for the evolution of love, assuming that love had never existed. Doesn't make sense.
If I were pretending to be you, I think I might strike this one from the list. I definitely wouldn't want to become side-tracked with elaborate discussions about love, what it really is, how it is defined, its meaning, its relevance, etc.
I, being the dummy that I am, must have missed something, because even a dummy can obviously see, that an organism, that aids its offspring in the quests for survival, when possible, may ultimately extent its version of "code" further into the future, in greater numbers, than an organism which merely aids itself. Particularly for the maternal parent, the materials of which offspring are composed, may represent resource costs which might be considered "investments".
If after offspring emerge into environments, offspring do not survive, then perhaps the resources expended to produce those offspring might have been wasted. If a parent has access to excess resources that its offspring may not have access to, and its offspring can benefit from such resources, but the parent does not assist the offspring in obtaining the excess resources when it is able to do so, then pehaps, such instances might also be considered "wasteful" or less than optimal.
It's not difficult to conceive, that individual organisms that may initially survive somewhat independently, may benefit from the aid of or relationships with other organisms, and, after time, develop severe, complex, necessary dependencies.
An organism's mate or mates may assist in overall survival, with gathering resources, helping offspring survive, etc., if the organism hasn't terminated its mate after directly mating with it, but, in such instances, it was probably beneficial to terminate the mate.
I've probably missed something blatantly obvious, while stating that which is equally blatantly obvious. Sadly, I'm really too much of a dummy to actively participate in such discussions. I can only stare blankly on the side lines, drooling with envy, as I try to make some sense of the clash of highly-advanced, developed minds, and blows of sharpened knowledge.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: testDummy]
#78043
06/17/06 23:47
06/17/06 23:47
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Lol.. you are of course right about the love arguemnt. Love is likely ultimately derived from pair bonding, a valuable asset for species that must care for young for extended periods of time. Similar close relationships can often be observed in other animals, notably bird species like albatross.
Courtship in bird species can be highly complex and advanced, such as the bower bird of Australia. The bower bird build "bowers" or little nest like structures, and decorates them with shells, colorful stones, etc. This is all done to impress a female. volutionasrly speaking, I'm unclear on the selective advantage such courtship provides, unless it is to strengthen and cement strong bonds between mating pairs.
Human behavior is remarkably similar. Since birds and humans(and other mamals of course) are only VERY distantly related--at the amniote split bewteen the crown terapods 9this occured beofre modern reptilia and mammals), the pair bonding and courtship behavior must have evolved independently. This reinforces the idea that such behavior provides selective advantages.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: testDummy]
#78044
06/18/06 00:03
06/18/06 00:03
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
I suppose, I, like many others, enjoy "underdog", "against-all-odds" stories (it might seem to be you against a vast army of intellectuals, some with nothing but time + ridiculous amounts of resources, to study, research, test, experiment, explore, analyze, ponder, theorize, etc.)
All of these traits sound like scientists. So you must be using the argument that 'all scientists agree with evolution.' They do not. And the majority is shrinking as we find new evidence. Its only a matter of time.
Amazingly enough, creation scientists do all of the things you just mentioned. So which side is right? My argument is that your side ignores the science. Your argument is that your side is bigger than mine.
This is just another way to use the old, "My dad can beat up your dad argument."
Quote:
but I don't really intend to encourage what might seem to be, from some perspectives, destructive behavior.
Yeah, what?
Quote:
If I were pretending to be you, I think I might strike this one from the list.
As long as I'm not merely pretending to be me, I think I'll stick with this one. Its a good one.
Quote:
I definitely wouldn't want to become side-tracked with elaborate discussions about love, what it really is, how it is defined, its meaning, its relevance, etc
You don't have to. You just have to look at some of the behavior that love causes. I'll elaborate below.
Quote:
I, being the dummy that I am, must have missed something, because even a dummy can obviously see, that an organism, that aids its offspring in the quests for survival, when possible, may ultimately extent its version of "code" further into the future, in greater numbers, than an organism which merely aids itself. Particularly for the maternal parent, the materials of which offspring are composed, may represent resource costs which might be considered "investments".
Certainly, parental behavior could be selected for. But that's one example out of the many other examples that contradict evolution.
Natural selection causes animals that are better at obtaining resources for themselves and their offspring to survive. In other words, selfishly keeping yourself alive especially at the expense of others is more selectively correct. Raising children would be to your benefit in this case because it propogates your genes.
Let's start with the recent hurricane Katrina that hit my country not too long ago. We responded by sending aid to people we've never met, giving things for nothing in return. People volunteered to help others with no benefit for themselves.
If we were the result of natural selection, you would think we would just finish the weak, or let them tend to themselves.
In fact, many workers asked some of the survivors (who were sitting around watching relief workers) to help out and they were told, "We aren't going to help. We just lost our home." Selfishness like that was common amongst the survivors, and yet we helped out in spite of this.
If there's a genetic tendency for people to do dangerous things to help others (soldiers going to war, firemen rushing into burning buildings, etc), those people should have been selected against a long time ago because they would be more likely to die before passing on their genes. Especially in the context of a more primitive, perhaps tribal society of people (early humans before civilization). Certainly its more advantageous to be the one who decides its safer to never put your life on the line for a complete stranger. And yet humans seem to almost be driven to do this.
You can't look at love as already existing. You have to find a natural explanation for why it would arise, without being biased towards the fact that it already exists. Otherwise you're just back peddling to save your theory.
Certainly love has its advantages. But evolution can't explain how it sprang out of non-love.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/18/06 00:06.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78045
06/18/06 02:57
06/18/06 02:57
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 18
Unt
Newbie
|
Newbie
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 18
|
Quote:
Love is likely ultimately derived from pair bonding, a valuable asset for species that must care for young for extended periods of time. Similar close relationships can often be observed in other animals, notably bird species like albatross.
Make sure you don't talk like that on a first date. LOL
But seriously, the love issue is very interesting, but not even necessarily for disproving evolution. It demonstrates a really big paradox in mainstream culture. Think how many people believe in evolution and that the alternative of evolution is pure ignorance - but then think how many of those same people believe in Love with a capital L, Human Dignity with a capital H, or Morality with a capital M.
I think it's interesting that many people accept evolution, but absolutely refuse to accept many of its implications in their practical lives.
And to keep on topic, I also think that evolutionary explanations need to be given for examples of love that are not advantageous to reproduction and survival.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Unt]
#78046
06/18/06 05:32
06/18/06 05:32
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Evolution makes things like rape, and doing whatever you feel like, sound ok
nonsense.. this doesnt follow in the slightest. Consciousness--while evolutionarily emergent, allows humans and higher animals to make choices. This leads to question of morality in general.
Morality is obviously derived from early tribal behavior in which poeple in a small to mid-sized social group needed rules of conduct. Similar rules of conduct are visble in great ape social groups as well. The fact is moral codes are advantageous for a society.
Why these things are difficult for some religious poeple to understand is unclear, but may involve a sort of binary mentality where all things must be absolute and certain. To them morality must be *prescribed*, where in general a secular observer would prefer to *describe* morals. That is to say, the morals of a society should be observed for themselves as they are in reality, not how any given individual wants them to be.
This of course creates a problem for moral absolutists, who cant accpet that practics they find abhorent may have been perfectly acceptable in other cultures. Pederasty in ancient Greece was a normal part of life for many poeple (particularly upper class or warrior classes). Regardless of how WE view that behavior, it was viewed in a fundamentally different way by THEM.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78047
06/18/06 13:23
06/18/06 13:23
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
You don't have to. You just have to look at some of the behavior that love causes.
Yes, but this doesn't mean evolution is the culprit for this, bad choices are. And it's questionable wether all bad things are done out of love for someone else. When someone really loves someone else, he or she would never hurt them. They would only do so, if they became jaleous or start to hate them for some reason. So technically love doesn't hurt. 
I could also say the love for God of some of us have wars as a result. I would be closer to the truth than you stating that evolution is evil my friend.  
Off course when we would reasonably think a few steps back, neither a religion or an evolution theory causes bad things per say, it's the people abusing it and making bad choices.
In this respect both evolution and a religion like your own are equal as bad or good, because they both can be misused.
Apart from that prove to me that other organisms than humans do not 'love' eachother. You can't really expect that a squirrel loves like the way we do, considering the big differences, especially when it comes to consciousness and intelligence.
I'd say love is a pretty irrelevant argument, not just because while sometimes it strikes you down in a split second and you know 'wow, I'm in love', sometimes it takes time to develop, but maybe you haven't witnissed this yet.
A better argument than love would be hate btw. But there's a equal story for that.
Quote:
but then think how many of those same people believe in Love with a capital L, Human Dignity with a capital H, or Morality with a capital M.
Far from all believers are saints, so I do not understand where you are comming from. Infact you seem to state that evolutionists can't love with a capital L, believe in human dignity with a capital H and have morality with a capital M etc.? Lmao. Off course we have or can do all those things.
Quote:
I think it's interesting that many people accept evolution, but absolutely refuse to accept many of its implications in their practical lives.
What implications on my practical live? Again, we can love just like they can .. Infact it's quite arrogant of them to think they can do better, they are not saints and most of them are not acting like they could become one either...
Quote:
Certainly, parental behavior could be selected for. But that's one example out of the many other examples that contradict evolution.
Natural selection causes animals that are better at obtaining resources for themselves and their offspring to survive. In other words, selfishly keeping yourself alive especially at the expense of others is more selectively correct. Raising children would be to your benefit in this case because it propogates your genes.
I missed why it contradicts ... care to explain that a bit for me? Thanks.
(bold part) You've said it yourself, it's an advantage to raise children. But when looking at it a bit more selfish, why do we even raise them?? Not for ourselves, we could live without them, but off course our genes would end to exist with our dead.
So, apart from love which stimulates mating behavior, the pleasure involved in the process, and our parental biological clock 'saying hey you want a baby, and better hurry you've passed 35!! ', isn't the propagation of our genes that's probably the real reason for us to even make babies?
Cheers
Last edited by PHeMoX; 06/18/06 13:42.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: PHeMoX]
#78048
06/18/06 18:36
06/18/06 18:36
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
All right, well I hadn't intended to derail this topic with a bunch of nonsense about moral relativity. So I'm going to start a whole new topic for that one. I know we discussed it before, but the atheists on the board probably got uncomfortable with the implications of their belief and just stopped talking about it. But since it seems you take accusations that your belief makes heinous crimes seem ok personally, we can discuss it further. Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Quote:
Consciousness--while evolutionarily emergent, allows humans and higher animals to make choices.
Higher animals? What other animal is conscious?
Quote:
Yes, but this doesn't mean evolution is the culprit for this, bad choices are. And it's questionable wether all bad things are done out of love for someone else. When someone really loves someone else, he or she would never hurt them. They would only do so, if they became jaleous or start to hate them for some reason. So technically love doesn't hurt.
Ok, all I was saying was that you have to look at love-fueled actions to see love's effect on human life. Not that love causes bad things to happen. In fact, hurting someone because you're jealous is the opposite of love. Based on what older cultures thought of love, its apparently patient, kind, etc. Jealousy, anger, rage, and revenge all lead to hurting someone, even if its over love.
So I agree with you, but I just wanted to clear up what I was saying, because it sounded like you were saying I thought love causes bad stuff.
Quote:
In this respect both evolution and a religion like your own are equal as bad or good,
That was wrong on so many levels, but I have to wait until I split this topic to take care of that problem.
Quote:
A better argument than love would be hate btw. But there's a equal story for that.
In regards to natural selection, hate is an easy one. I think you've forgotten the whole point of this discussion to begin with.
Quote:
I missed why it contradicts ... care to explain that a bit for me? Thanks.
(bold part) You've said it yourself, it's an advantage to raise children. But when looking at it a bit more selfish, why do we even raise them?? Not for ourselves, we could live without them, but off course our genes would end to exist with our dead.
It doesn't. Its good to take care of your kids. Selection will favor parents who do. I was dismissing the notion that parental behavior wouldn't be selected for, not using it as an argument against evolution. My arguments against evolution are clearly stated. People who go out on a limb for complete strangers, risking their lives usually for nothing in return, should be more likely to die than others. But humans seem driven to do this.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78049
06/18/06 19:58
06/18/06 19:58
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Higher animals? What other animal is conscious?
Certainly the great apes like chimps, gorillas, etc, must have some sort of consciousness. So must whales, dolphins, etc. Probably even cats and dogs have a sort of self-awareness, not to mention variuous birds and so on.
Whales communicate through various songs and work together in complex social groups. Apes do the same, they also have rules of conduct, as was shown by the feral child, John Ssebunya, raised by monkeys in Africa.
Indeed, the line between human consciouness and animal consciousnesss is fuzzy. This is consistent with evolutionary theory in that consciouness evolved gradually, in relation to the development of the brain.
|
|
|
|
