Let's debate Evolution

[BillyTheMountain]

I'm known for controversial statements, so how's this: Evolution is NOT a religious belief. [Ooooo] Debates about evolution do not belong in the "Let's Debate Religion" threads.

The current issue is: Has evolution stopped? Is it speeding up? What role will the extinction of humans have on the progress of evolution?

Some suggest that as the Earth heats up with global warming, evolution also speeds up (until it stops altogether).

What do you think?

[dudewithasock]

Woo..
Im ahead, Im a man
Im the first mammal to wear pants, yeah
Im at peace with my lust
I can kill cause in God I trust, yeah
Its evolution, baby

Im at piece, Im the man
Buying stocks on the day of the crash
On the loose, Im a truck
All the rolling hills, Ill flatten em out, yeah
Its herd behavior, uh huh
Its evolution, baby

Admire me, admire my home
Admire my song, heres my coat
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
This land is mine, this land is free
Ill do what I want but irresponsibly
Its evolution, baby

Im a thief, Im a liar
Theres my church, I sing in the choir:
(hallelujah hallelujah)

Admire me, admire my home
Admire my song, admire my clothes
cause we know, appetite for a nightly feast
Those ignorant indians got nothin on me
Nothin, why?
Because, its evolution, baby!

I am ahead, I am advanced
I am the first mammal to make plans, yeah
I crawled the earth, but now Im higher
Twenty-ten, watch it go to fire
Its evolution, baby (2x)
Do the evolution
Come on, come on, come on

[forrestunifreak]

Evolution isn't scientific fact.



No need for a debate. I already know it's wrong and I don't care what anyone else thinks.

[Hazmat]

Hasn't this topic been discussed b4?? :confused:

I'm pretty sure it has, but can't remember when or where i saw it.

[señor coolguy]

I actually don't really mind how humans came to be. Just as long as I am able to ride a unicycle, I'm cool with what I am

[maestro8]

No need for a debate. I already know it's wrong and I don't care what anyone else thinks.
Sorry for the crosspost, but this situation calls for the image. Again.
http://www.atheistnation.net/images/creationist01.jpg

[Det-riot]

i don't even try to convince people any more that god didn't create shit, or anything else for that matter, i know that evolution is correct and that is good enough for me. But i am willing to tell creationists they are wrong, i harassed one so much i made her cry :) (god didn't try and stop me, i wonder why:rolleyes: )

[wickedbob]

It is had been all, but proved 100% real. It basically is. I there is a magical divine power that took dirt and clay made a ball and said hey I should make little tiny things to walk around on it and eventually kill themselves off?

[wickedbob]

i don't even try to convince people any more that god didn't create shit, or anything else for that matter, i know that evolution is correct and that is good enough for me. But i am willing to tell creationists they are wrong, i harassed one so much i made her cry :) (god didn't try and stop me, i wonder why:rolleyes: )

How else would he get his shits and giggles?

[wickedbob]

Evolution isn't scientific fact.



No need for a debate. I already know it's wrong and I don't care what anyone else thinks.

Wow you have an open mind! Serious you would be good at arguing.

[The.Mars.Volta]

Woo..
Im ahead, Im a man
Im the first mammal to wear pants, yeah
Im at peace with my lust
I can kill cause in God I trust, yeah
Its evolution, baby

Im at piece, Im the man
Buying stocks on the day of the crash
On the loose, Im a truck
All the rolling hills, Ill flatten em out, yeah
Its herd behavior, uh huh
Its evolution, baby

Admire me, admire my home
Admire my song, heres my coat
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
This land is mine, this land is free
Ill do what I want but irresponsibly
Its evolution, baby

Im a thief, Im a liar
Theres my church, I sing in the choir:
(hallelujah hallelujah)

Admire me, admire my home
Admire my song, admire my clothes
cause we know, appetite for a nightly feast
Those ignorant indians got nothin on me
Nothin, why?
Because, its evolution, baby!

I am ahead, I am advanced
I am the first mammal to make plans, yeah
I crawled the earth, but now Im higher
Twenty-ten, watch it go to fire
Its evolution, baby (2x)
Do the evolution
Come on, come on, come on
Wooo go Pearl Jam. I love the film clip for that song.

Btw, evolution is the way to go. All the evidence is there. And come on, big guy in the sky makes everything. And also, if I were God, The first thing I'd make is light. According to the bible, he made the heavens and the earth in complete darkness. First thing I would think is "woah, lets get some lights here." (Thanks Ricky Gervais for that one.)

[Det-riot]

my friend figured out that the bible is scientifically wrong due to the fact that he didn't make light before he made earth and we know for a fact that there are stars older than the earth. There was also some math involved ill try to get it from and ill post it

[The.Mars.Volta]

The current issue is: Has evolution stopped? Is it speeding up? What role will the extinction of humans have on the progress of evolution?
Evolution takes millions of years to be completed. I don't think it will just stop.

[wickedbob]

Duh it is wrong. I am not saying people who believe in it are anything. I am just saying some people of a weaker mind set (criminals) need to think that a magical floating man way up there is watching them and is ruler to be functional. Seriously also what way is up what way is down in the universe there is no up or down.

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

Evolution takes millions of years to be completed. I don't think it will just stop.
Hopefully it won't take much longer!!

I'm dieing to see it!! The trailer looks crunk.

[brendan]

i believe in evolution, to me it seems pretty natural. But we wont ever see it thats kinda the point. However theres a hell lot more evidence for evolution than there is for god. We can at least say that for sure :P

[The.Mars.Volta]

Hopefully it won't take much longer!!

I'm dieing to see it!! The trailer looks crunk.
took me ages to get that. i read it, then got off the comp. cos i had to go somewhere, then a few mins later i was like, oh i get it.. hahaha

[BillyTheMountain]

I actually don't really mind how humans came to be. Just as long as I am able to ride a unicycle, I'm cool with what I am

Some scientists think it was the unicycling monkey that first evolved into a human.

[BillyTheMountain]

Evolution takes millions of years to be completed. I don't think it will just stop.

But as far as humans go, I think we're the end of the line, right?

[uni57]

The current issue is: Has evolution stopped? Is it speeding up?Evolution is going in reverse (as far as humans go). Actually, I'm not sure I believe that, but these days, just about anyone can live long enough to reproduce and spread their genes and pass down their ideas like a virus. Repeal the helmet laws! Relaese some dangerous wild animals into our cities! Abolish the speed limits! Close the shelters... if you can't feed yourself, you DIE! Let's put some danger back into our society!

Take a listen: The Idiots are Taking Over, by NOFX (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw49mm-CmNo)

(note: the video itself is not by NOFX and I didn't pay much attention to the imagery. I posted the link just so you can hear this great song.)

Its not the right time to be sober
Now the idiots have taken over
Spreading like a social cancer, is there an answer?

Mensa membership conceding
Tell me why and how are all the stupid people breeding
Watson, its really elementary
The industrial revolution
Has flipped the bitch on evolution
The benevolent and wise are being thwarted, ostracized, what a bummer
The world keeps getting dumber
Insensitivity is standard and faith is being fancied over reason

Darwin's rollin over in his coffin
The fittest are surviving much less often
Now everything seems to be reversing, and its worsening
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool
Now angry mob mentality's no longer the exception, its the rule
And I'm startin' to feel a lot like Charlton Heston
Stranded on a primate planet
Apes and orangutans that ran it to the ground
With generals and the armies that obeyed them
Followers following fables
Philosophies that enable them to rule without regard

Theres no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated
Political scientists get the same one vote as some Arkansas inbred
Majority rule, don't work in mental institutions
Sometimes the smallest softest voice carries the grand biggest solutions

What are we left with?
A nation of God-fearing pregnant nationalists
Who feel it's their duty to populate the homeland
Pass on traditions
How to get ahead religions
And prosperity via simpleton culture

The idiots are takin' over

The idiots are takin' over

[dudewithasock]

I don't get it when people claim that evolution is in "reverse"...it's still moving in a linear fashion, just things are evolving in a different manner. That's what I believe, anyway.

[dudewithasock]

But as far as humans go, I think we're the end of the line, right?

That's a fairly arrogant assumption to make, that people as a whole are, currently, about as complex as it's gonna get. I find that highly unlikely.

[uni57]

I don't get it when people claim that evolution is in "reverse"...it's still moving in a linear fashion, just things are evolving in a different manner. That's what I believe, anyway.I don't necessarily believe it's going in reverse. I actually don't know what I believe. But it seems that survival traits no longer dictate whether a person breeds. So, it would seem that natural selection has gone out the window. Plus, modern medicine does whatever it can to keep people alive -- even those born with genetic mutations which would not (even 100 years ago) have been passed to future generations. Lastly, as the NOFX song suggests, the stupid people are breeding like mad. Much more so than the intellectual who plans his family.

I've only thought about this in passing. I don't have any strong opinions, plus I'm really somewhat ignorant of how evolution even works (although I believe I understand the basics).

[uni57]

That's a fairly arrogant assumption to make, that people as a whole are, currently, about as complex as it's gonna get. I find that highly unlikely.Me too. But what would precipitate further evolution?

In Larry Niven's science fiction novels (in his Known Space series), they had the Birthright Lotteries. Couples were allowed to have only a certain number of children on overcrowded Earth. The Lottery was a way to have an extra child. This (secretly) bred for "luck". Also, geniuses were allotted unlimited birthrights, thus selecting for intelligence.

Today it's easy to live and reproduce. Anyone can do it. Random, genetic mutations (of the good kind) are no longer selected for. In fact, intelligence is no longer even a requirement. Our brains can atrophy without consequence. Physical strength is no longer important either. Maybe a worldwide nuclear or biological war would select those who are most resistent.

What else would kick evolution back into action? How are we to evolve?

[harper]

We'll know evolution is going in the right direction when Dave gets smacked on the freeway and his genetic code stops.

[CKCrowe]

drdino.com
go to downloads on the website, and you can watch the video's, about whatever about evolution you want to know, opened my eyes, answered all my questions.
:D

[uni57]

We'll know evolution is going in the right direction when Dave gets smacked on the freeway and his genetic code stops.I need to start breeding like a rabbit. My offspring will spread and populate the highways until we, the non-speeders, are the majority.

Repeat-offender speeders should lose the right to drive a safe car. They should be made to ride in the cheapest, most unsafe car available for a probational period of one year. Go ahead! Continue to drive like a maniac!

It will be...

Evolution in Action

[johnfoss]

Evolution is NOT a religious belief.Untrue. Some people choose to believe in things, science or no. It's not a church, but if they declare their belief even though it's an incomplete theory/science, it would seem a matter of "faith." See the quotes of Det-roit for an example.

Debates about evolution do not belong in the "Let's Debate Religion" threads.Good luck with that. And flies don't belong around your picnic lunch.

Has evolution stopped? Is it speeding up? What role will the extinction of humans have on the progress of evolution?Is there a reason to think evolution will/has stopped? None I've heard of. Speeding up? Same. If we become extinct it might allow evolutionary processes to return to "normal" but I don't think the science is sufficiently advanced for us to know one way or another. I'd rather worry about the extinction of us part.

I rather think of evolution as some sort of natural process. This process will continue to act regardless of what goes on around it. If we pollute the earth, some animals may adapt to live in the pollution. If the world gets hotter (or colder), species will adapt to survive in it. Or die.

The more interesting question is whether we humans are evolving, or *how* we're evolving. If natural selection is out the window, what then? Well, we've had "unnatural selection" for hundreds (thousands?) of years. Women are attracted to men who are strong and powerful, while men are attracted to women who are beautiful. Does this mean we're breeding ourselves for these traits? But other traits, such as crooked teeth, get ignored. At least in industrialized societies. We get our teeth fixed. In poorer societies, bad teeth would still be a factor in a person's attractiveness so there may still be some selection going on there.

The band DEVO was built on the idea that the human race is "devolving." Since we no longer have to struggle to survive, we might be evolving backward. We'll see...

[cathwood]

I thought that we didn't 'need' to evolve at the moment because we are so good at manipulating our environment. However, it remains to be seen whether we will evolve to survive with the consequences of that manipulation.

[BillyTheMountain]

In fact, intelligence is no longer even a requirement. Our brains can atrophy without consequence. Physical strength is no longer important either.

Cavemen were neither more intelligent nor stronger than the species they evolved from. They just had opposable thumbs, and found it easier to stand erect.

There is strong evidence that chimpanzees are in fact the most intelligent beings on the planet, though they lack the sophisticated language skills humans have. Consequently, they cannot communicate their intelligence like humans have, which also gives them humility.

Does humility have any evolutionary value, or is it disappearing?

[thejdw]

god didn't try and stop me, i wonder why :rolleyes:
I can answer that! (But for the sake of the christians on the form I've put it in white: )
There is no god!!!

[uni57]

Does humility have any evolutionary value, or is it disappearing?I'm comparing humans to humans. Like our distant ancestors (think: 2001, A Space Odyssey), those with slightly higher intelligence or imagination learned to use animal bones as clubs -- and were thus more successful in feeding their tribe. They lived and bred, while their neighbors died of starvation.

My point was that survival skills no longer matter (for humans). Just about anyone can live long enough to procreate. Natural selection is selecting everyone, whether they are fit or not. So does that mean that we are not evolving? I don't know. When I walk through a Walmart, I feel like we are going backwards.

[lostconch]

I think just about everyone of ya'll is confusing evolution w/ natural selection
(survival of the fittest),, not remotely the same

[uni57]

I've already admitted to being rather ignorant about evolution, but I thought it was basically natural selection plus random genetic drift.

[zfreak220]

http://www.bustedtees.com/bt/images/BT-vivalaevolucion-gallery-2756.jpg

[monkeyman]

http://www.bustedtees.com/bt/images/BT-vivalaevolucion-gallery-2756.jpg
Baahahahahahaha! That's amazing, zfreak.



Lostconch, they might not be the same thing, but you can't say they "aren't remotely the same". If a creature is born with a genetic mutation that greatly increases its chance of survival, it's (probably) able to spread its genes to its offspring, who then further spread the mutation. You can't have evolution without the principle of natural selection, because members of a species don't all change at the same time. It starts with one, and (assuming nothing stops the chain), it spreads through the rest of the species and becomes the majority.

[mcnuggets300]

http://drdino.com
LIES IN THE TEXT BOOKS!:eek:
THE DANGERS OF EVOLUTION!:eek: i really want to watch this one)
DINOSAURS AND THE BIBLE!:eek:
hilarity ensues

[JJuggle]

But as far as humans go, I think we're the end of the line, right?
No Billy. YOU are the end of the line.

[BillyTheMountain]

Lostconch, they might not be the same thing, but you can't say they "aren't remotely the same". If a creature is born with a genetic mutation that greatly increases its chance of survival, it's (probably) able to spread its genes to its offspring, who then further spread the mutation. You can't have evolution without the principle of natural selection, because members of a species don't all change at the same time. It starts with one, and (assuming nothing stops the chain), it spreads through the rest of the species and becomes the majority.

Alex,

Evolution is NOT about new variations WITHIN a species.

It's about brand NEW SPECIES.

[JJuggle]

Evolution is NOT about new variations WITHIN a species.

It's about brand NEW SPECIES.
Not true, Billy. Evolution is the manifestation of changes in the traits and characteristics of living organisms regardless of whether speciation takes place. New species do occasionally come into being as part of this process. The new and old species either don't reproduce when they mate or produce sterile offspring.

All this is quite beside the point though, since we have determined that YOU are the end of the line. How lucky the new pre-owned vehicle that gets to call you its owner.

[JJuggle]

Untrue. Some people choose to believe in things, science or no. It's not a church, but if they declare their belief even though it's an incomplete theory/science, it would seem a matter of "faith." See the quotes of Det-roit for an example.
John, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The fossil record, science of molecular biology, and statistical/mathematical analysis all support it as fact. Are you suggesting that despite the fact that nothing in the natural and physical sciences nor any mathematical analysis contradicts genetic mutation and Darwinian natural selection as promoting evolution, that those who believe in it are actually invoking some supernatural power or force to do so?

Or are you confusing the rational belief in the soundness of the science even without a full understanding of it - guilty as charged - with a complete faith in evolution without any attempt to understand the science or its logic?

[BillyTheMountain]

Not true, Billy. Evolution is the manifestation of changes in the traits and characteristics of living organisms regardless of whether speciation takes place. New species do occasionally come into being as part of this process. The new and old species either don't reproduce when they mate or produce sterile offspring.

All this is quite beside the point though, since we have determined that YOU are the end of the line. How lucky the new pre-owned vehicle that gets to call you its owner.

I won't take your faith from you, but not all those of Atheist Faith see things your way.

[lostconch]

Baahahahahahaha! That's amazing, zfreak.



Lostconch, they might not be the same thing, but you can't say they "aren't remotely the same". If a creature is born with a genetic mutation that greatly increases its chance of survival, it's (probably) able to spread its genes to its offspring, who then further spread the mutation. You can't have evolution without the principle of natural selection, because members of a species don't all change at the same time. It starts with one, and (assuming nothing stops the chain), it spreads through the rest of the species and becomes the majority.

I understand what you're saying and basically agree,, I would just say that the changes aren't mutations that improve this particular animal to survive better in it's environment,, it is already in the DNA code,, Birds may be different but they are all birds,, Maybe they all came from a specific type of bird or maybe there were a few varieties that could interbreed no way to ever know,, know one around today was there to observe how many original types of birds there were,,

It is obvious to anyone that natural selection is occurring all around us,, it has been observed countless times,, You can set up scientific experiments and prove it not to mention witness it in the wild,, what has never be shown or proven is that natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution is possible,, Kinds don't change to other kinds,, nonlife does't make life,, something can't come from nothing,, that is the basis of evolution

[JJuggle]

I won't take your faith from you, but not all those of Atheist Faith see things your way.
As the caveman says in that Geico ad: "What?"

[lostconch]

John, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The fossil record, science of molecular biology, and statistical/mathematical analysis all support it as fact. Are you suggesting that despite the fact that nothing in the natural and physical sciences nor any mathematical analysis contradicts genetic mutation and Darwinian natural selection as promoting evolution, that those who believe in it are actually invoking some supernatural power or force to do so?

Or are you confusing the rational belief in the soundness of the science even without a full understanding of it - guilty as charged - with a complete faith in evolution without any attempt to understand the science or its logic?

What exactly are talking about?? The Fossil record,, Molecular biology and mathmatical analysis all contradict evolution as far as I'm concerned,, I've read the info on both sides of this issue and I'll take design any day of the week

[JJuggle]

It is obvious to anyone that natural selection is occurring all around us,, it has been observed countless times,, You can set up scientific experiments and prove it not to mention witness it in the wild,, what has never be shown or proven is that natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution is possible,, Kinds don't change to other kinds,, nonlife does't make life,, something can't come from nothing,, that is the basis of evolution
If natural selection is, as you say, occurring all around us, what, if not as the engine of evolution, would you say the point of it is? How would you define it and what purpose would you say it serves?

[Borges]

nonlife does't make life,, something can't come from nothing,, that is the basis of evolution
As far as I understand that's beyond the theory of evolution. Evolution is about how species, which are already there, change over time. How life got started in the first place isn't a part of it.
That's how my highschool biology book had it anyway, and I like the definition since all the theories about how DNA was created at first look like more or less guesswork to me.

[lostconch]

If natural selection is, as you say, occurring all around us, what, if not as the engine of evolution, would you say the point of it is? How would you define it and what purpose would you say it serves?

The point of it is that it is in the design,, Living things are sophisticated machines that are constantly combining traits in reproduction,, traits within their kind,, if something in the environment changes those that have the necessary trait exposed increase their chance to survive and reproduce offspring with those same traits and so on,, it is already coded into the DNA,, but dinosaurs didn't change to birds, frogs didn't become dogs etc

[lostconch]

As far as I understand that's beyond the theory of evolution. Evolution is about how species, which are already there, change over time. How life got started in the first place isn't a part of it.
That's how my highschool biology book had it anyway, and I like the definition since all the theories about how DNA was created at first look like more or less guesswork to me.

How life got started is the whole point of it,, maybe you've never looked into that much but it is not difficult to find,, In schools for the most part they still try and stay away from direct origins issues (for the obvious reasons) so they don't teach the entire evolutionary picture,, I figure about another 20 years and it will all be included in the curricullum..

It's all guess work and faith,, The whole theory hinges on Time, Random Chance and the idea that everything living thing (plants and animals) came from one simple cell that somehow formed from the primordial ooze,, and then natural selection took over,, I can understand debating about the time factor , old universe, young universe, both sides have some very good arguments,, but random chance and life forming from nonlife is absurdity,,

But of course we know there can't possibly be super natural intervention, and we're here, therefore it must have happenned

[Borges]

It's all guess work and faith,, The whole theory hinges on Time, Random Chance and the idea that everything living thing (plants and animals) came from one simple cell that somehow formed from the primordial ooze,
Luckily I can take my mental scissors, cut away the dead stuff at the beginning, and start from that cell (or whenever the lifeforms stop being theoretical and the fossil record begins, I should look into that some time). :)
From then on it looks like sound reasoning, complete with intermediate species between reptiles and birds etc. I'm going to look into the rest of arguments against the theory when time permits.

[JJuggle]

The point of it is that it is in the design,, Living things are sophisticated machines that are constantly combining traits in reproduction,, traits within their kind,, if something in the environment changes those that have the necessary trait exposed increase their chance to survive and reproduce offspring with those same traits and so on,, it is already coded into the DNA,, but dinosaurs didn't change to birds, frogs didn't become dogs etc
So you're saying that natural selection was (intelligently) designed to provide living things with a way to change to adapt to their environments but is not the mechanism for evolution?

Let's suppose that two groups of a species were taken out of their current identical habitats and each put in a different, but survivable, new habitat. But each of the two new habitats presented different survival pressures. After a million years what would have happened? Would the two groups be able to mate and produce offspring? Would they look alike? With a million years of two distinct and separate sets of natural selection going on what would happen? According to what you seem to be saying the two groups would be only marginally different, like a great dane to a daschund.

Or are you also denying the process of mutation?

[JJuggle]

but random chance and life forming from nonlife is absurdity,,
In fact, the statistical probability of life forming in the universe can be shown to be anything but absurd.

[unibabyguy]

How life got started is the whole point of it,, maybe you've never looked into that much but it is not difficult to find,, In schools for the most part they still try and stay away from direct origins issues (for the obvious reasons) so they don't teach the entire evolutionary picture,, I figure about another 20 years and it will all be included in the curricullum..


The origin of life and evolution are entirely separate issues. You could have a god which created life and this life had the ability to evolve independently without intervention from god. Or are you saying that god is incapable of that? Then god wouldn't be omnipotent.

[monkeyman]

In fact, the statistical probability of life forming in the universe can be shown to be anything but absurd.
I was about to comment on this. I've recently been watching a few of the "The Universe" episodes on the History Channel...basically, it explains the layout/makeup of the known universe, and explains how stars live and die, etc. Really cool stuff.

Anyway, the first one I watched said that there were hundreds of billions of stars in most galaxies, and that there were probably over 100 billion galaxies in the universe.

That equates to about 20 sextillion stars. Written out, that's 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Assuming all water drops are .025 mL, you would need 200,000,000,000 Olympic-size swimming pools to hold 20 sextillion water drops. That's a whole effing lot. Now, I know very few of those have planets with them, but I would think that out of all of those, it is not unreasonable that one would form life.

[lostconch]

So you're saying that natural selection was (intelligently) designed to provide living things with a way to change to adapt to their environments but is not the mechanism for evolution?

Let's suppose that two groups of a species were taken out of their current identical habitats and each put in a different, but survivable, new habitat. But each of the two new habitats presented different survival pressures. After a million years what would have happened? Would the two groups be able to mate and produce offspring? Would they look alike? With a million years of two distinct and separate sets of natural selection going on what would happen? According to what you seem to be saying the two groups would be only marginally different, like a great dane to a daschund.

Or are you also denying the process of mutation?

I'M DENYING MILLIONS OF YEARS...Which is an absolute must to even conceive of the mathmatical impossibility that life came from non life or one kind of animal changed to another

[dudewithasock]

I was about to comment on this. I've recently been watching a few of the "The Universe" episodes on the History Channel...basically, it explains the layout/makeup of the known universe, and explains how stars live and die, etc. Really cool stuff.

Anyway, the first one I watched said that there were hundreds of billions of stars in most galaxies, and that there were probably over 100 billion galaxies in the universe.

That equates to about 20 sextillion stars. Written out, that's 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Assuming all water drops are .025 mL, you would need 200,000,000,000 Olympic-size swimming pools to hold 20 sextillion water drops. That's a whole effing lot. Now, I know very few of those have planets with them, but I would think that out of all of those, it is not unreasonable that one would form life.

I think Mr. Lines gave us that exact same speech.

[lostconch]

The origin of life and evolution are entirely separate issues. You could have a god which created life and this life had the ability to evolve independently without intervention from god. Or are you saying that god is incapable of that? Then god wouldn't be omnipotent.

Possibility I suppose,, just doesn't line up with biblical creation model,, which as far as I'm concerned lines up the best with this issue

[JJuggle]

I'M DENYING MILLIONS OF YEARS...
You have my sympathy.

[lostconch]

In fact, the statistical probability of life forming in the universe can be shown to be anything but absurd.

And you would say my point of view takes faith

[mscalisi]

wait...what??? A 2000 year old book isn't scientifically correct? Surely you must be joking.

my friend figured out that the bible is scientifically wrong due to the fact that he didn't make light before he made earth and we know for a fact that there are stars older than the earth. There was also some math involved ill try to get it from and ill post it

[JJuggle]

And you would say my point of view takes faith
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't say that it doesn't. Isn't that, afterall, your point?

[lostconch]

You have my sympathy.

Why exactly are you so convinced in the millions of years idea??

[unibabyguy]

Possibility I suppose,, just doesn't line up with biblical creation model,, which as far as I'm concerned lines up the best with this issue

How do you explain the fossil record? The Bible doesn't say anything about dinosaurs or our human ancestors.

[lostconch]

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't say that it doesn't. Isn't that, afterall, your point?

Not my point, faith is always an issue,, my point is to try and show that it is not blind,, and that what you think you know as fact may not be,, and that you are perhaps leaning on the faith fence without realizing it,, I've spent quite a bit of time looking into this stuff,, I've learned some things that frankly have really surprised me once I started this little hobby..

I'm truly not some fringe character that lives in some fantasy land,, I started looking into all this when I knew these questions would eventually start coming up from my kids,, When I ask for what you think I really want to know,, I may be able put something out that you may not be aware of,, change your perspective,,

[JJuggle]

Why exactly are you so convinced in the millions of years idea??
Billions actually.

But the reason I am convinced of it is because it is what years and years of science has arrived at after years and years of learning to observe, analyze, and describe the natural world.

When given the choice between this and choosing from among the hundreds of creation stories and myths devised by people from cultures spread across the world as a result of their wonder, imagination, curiosity, and ignorance, I will choose the former.

And I am not merely choosing the lesser of two bad explanations. I am choosing an explanation that has examined and found credible physical evidence from a number of disciplines to support the billions of years it has taken for simple life to spring forth and develop into the complexity we know observe on earth. In the end whatever "science" you put forth to support your claims about natural selection, evolution, and creation it is a supernatural power of magnificent complexity that you rely on to explain complexity.

[lostconch]

How do you explain the fossil record? The Bible doesn't say anything about dinosaurs or our human ancestors.

Fossil record was laid down by catastrophic worldwide flood,, the biblical flood would not have been the way you picture a flood today,, According to the bible back then the earth was watered from the ground up,, it has a description of the fountains of the deep bursting forth and probably the first time it ever rained,, The flood created what we see as the fossil record andd the geologic column today,(which by the way exist no where completely, as described in the text books),, They divide these layers into years and that is where the basic dates come from,,You wouldn't have a fossil record unless these things were covered abruptly,, There are no transitional forms in the fossil record, And yes there would have been some type of dinosaurs on the ark,, Dinasuars and man would have been on the planet at the same time,, take a look at Job 40:15-24

Have you never heard of Adam and Eve,, And to be more specific we are all from the line of Noah

[SchwinnJim]

How do you explain the fossil record? The Bible doesn't say anything about dinosaurs or our human ancestors.

It amazes me how there are so many people who do not know entirely what the Bible says, and yet say things like, "the Bible doesn't say anything about (such and such)." That's equivalent to me saying something like, "The Guinness Book of World Records doesn't say anything about Jesus feeding a record crowd by himself."

Fortunately for those who don't read the Bible in its entirety, Google is now a handy sidekick to do some very basic topical research. There are hundreds of resources on the subjects by highly respectable scientists and scholars of ancient texts.

1. In the book of Job, the Bible discusses both the equivalent description of the plesiosaurus/kronosaurus (in one family or the other) in the ancient name of Leviathan, and the equivalent description of the brachiosaurus named by the ancients as Behemoth. Remember, the Bible was written "eons" before science named these creatures, so you can't expect modern names to be found in ancient texts. :)
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml (the first link I grabbed from Google as an example, haven't read the whole thing)

2. By ancestors, if you mean before Adam: the Bible does refer to pre-Adamite civilizations. These civilizations were obliterated by God because they were beyond redemption in corruption under the rule of the fallen angels. Afterward, the world was waste and empty, ready to start from a blank canvas.
http://www.frankcaw.com/PreAdamite-Creation.html (briefly scanned, as an example)

3. The Bible also does not necessarily disagree with evolution. Obviously, God has placed in most species the ability to adapt to conditions and changes in its environments and competitive species (micro-evolution). However, the ability for one species to morph into a completely different species (macro-evolution)? That's a bit of a stretch, though no one can truly say it is impossible-- for NOTHING is impossible with God; just as no one can truly say, "there is no God," for to say such a thing would mean they have omnipresence in the universe to justify making such a retarded comment. This is why the Bible even states, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"


Technically, by macro-evolution's theory, there shouldn't be just humans right now, there should be super humans, or X-men, which are competing with humans for resources. :D
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376994/ (living proof)

--Jim---

[BillyTheMountain]

3. The Bible also does not necessarily disagree with evolution. Obviously, God has placed in most species the ability to adapt to conditions and changes in its environments and competitive species (micro-evolution). However, the ability for one species to morph into a completely different species (macro-evolution)? That's a bit of a stretch, though no one can truly say it is impossible-- for NOTHING is impossible with God; --Jim---

Jim,

Cool idea.

Ther was a brief period in the 1940s-1960s when scientists thought theophilic creatures would be made extinct by murderous Atheists in the USSR, China, etc.

For reasons which soon became clear to everyone, the Atheists cultures self-destructed, and theophilic cultures seem to be the fittest. Seems evolution has always favored theophilic cultures.

Billy

[uni57]

Billy, I think you've hit upon something. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the form of government.

[JJuggle]

For reasons which soon became clear to everyone, the Atheists cultures self-destructed, and theophilic cultures seem to be the fittest. Seems evolution has always favored theophilic cultures.
One possible theory to explain this that has been put forward is that natural selection favored the most gullible children. That is, because human children are so dependent on their elders for such an extended period of time, natural selection favors those who are most compliant and obedient, i.e. the ones who listen when told what to do and what not to do.

One side effect of this, however, is a species that will believe just about any tall tale that it's fed no matter how fantastical and no matter how glaring the lack of evidence or logic to support the belief.

[Borges]

3. The Bible also does not necessarily disagree with evolution.
Amen!

[JayS]

Not my point, faith is always an issue,, my point is to try and show that it is not blind,, and that what you think you know as fact may not be,, and that you are perhaps leaning on the faith fence without realizing it,, I've spent quite a bit of time looking into this stuff,, I've learned some things that frankly have really surprised me once I started this little hobby..

I'm truly not some fringe character that lives in some fantasy land,, I started looking into all this when I knew these questions would eventually start coming up from my kids,, When I ask for what you think I really want to know,, I may be able put something out that you may not be aware of,, change your perspective,,


I like a guy that is prepared to offer himself to answer a challenge, especially when I think that that challenge is exceeedingly difficult. I welcome your offer to change my perspective. The religious and the ID arguments often quote the statistical chances of life emerging spontaneously as being remote. But there are one hell of a lot of worlds out there, one hell of a lot of environments, one hell of a lot of "primordial soups". The statistical chance at any one that life springs up, may be low, but added together a lot of small chances can become near certainty.
But what of religion, what of ID? What are the chances that an all powerful being, a God, could come into being spontaneously? Rather than a miniscule blob of simple life, the religious are asking me to accept that a Being, Superbeing or God, capable of Creating life by him/herself came into existance equally spontaneously. Is it not a valid question to ask " where did God come from, if God does indeed exist?" Why is this not an equally unlikely, even far more unlikely, event than the spontaneous creation of the first step of evolutionary life. Instead of something simple being created, the religious are asking ius to accept that something of incredible capability suddenly appeared.....or always existed.

Would one of the religious explain how he accepts this as statistically feasible, but that a simple evolutionary step is statistically impossible. To say God has always existed is not an answer, and can be no more than a belief. It needs a more reasoned answer.

What has convinced you that there is a God, and where did he come from?

[unibabyguy]

1. In the book of Job, the Bible discusses both the equivalent description of the plesiosaurus/kronosaurus (in one family or the other) in the ancient name of Leviathan, and the equivalent description of the brachiosaurus named by the ancients as Behemoth. Remember, the Bible was written "eons" before science named these creatures, so you can't expect modern names to be found in ancient texts. :)

I've read the description in Job, and it could describe a lot of different animals like an Elephant, Hippo, Rhino, and others. Just because the description *sounds* like a dinosaur doesn't mean that it actually *was* a dinosaur. What in the description makes you believe that it could *only* have been a dinosaur and not some other animal?


2. By ancestors, if you mean before Adam: the Bible does refer to pre-Adamite civilizations. These civilizations were obliterated by God because they were beyond redemption in corruption under the rule of the fallen angels. Afterward, the world was waste and empty, ready to start from a blank canvas.
http://www.frankcaw.com/PreAdamite-Creation.html (briefly scanned, as an example)


I don't see anything in the above link which specifically talks about the hominid fossil record. What specifically explains the existence of Neanderthal fossils, for example? There's only one mention of the word "fossil" in the link you provide and it says that a "pre-Adamite" civilization did exist at one time, but provides no explanation for how long ago or what these humans looked like. Your source lacks scientific basis.


However, the ability for one species to morph into a completely different species (macro-evolution)? That's a bit of a stretch, though no one can truly say it is impossible--


You're right, it's a bit of a stretch to claim that one species can morph into a completely different species (like from a bird to a frog), but evolutionary theory makes no such claim or prediction.

[unibabyguy]

There are no transitional forms in the fossil record


This web site lists plenty of transitional forms:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

[BillyTheMountain]

One possible theory to explain this that has been put forward is that natural selection favored the most gullible children. That is, because human children are so dependent on their elders for such an extended period of time, natural selection favors those who are most compliant and obedient, i.e. the ones who listen when told what to do and what not to do.

One side effect of this, however, is a species that will believe just about any tall tale that it's fed no matter how fantastical and no matter how glaring the lack of evidence or logic to support the belief.

There you go, putting down Americans under George Bush again.

[BillyTheMountain]

What fuels evolution? why not leave well enough alone?

[tobbogonist]

What fuels evolution? why not leave well enough alone?
I hope its not oil, cause where running out of that.

[Beetle]

Has anyone read Evolution for Everyone by David Sloan Wilson? It is a great book on evolution, religion and human behavior. He talkes alot about studying religion and human behavior from an evolutionary perspective. He does not mention any theory about natural selection favoring gullable children. A theory meant to insult religious people and not a serious scientific theory. Instead he talks about the fact that humans are cooperative in their behaviour, we survive by cooporating and living in communities. When we think about what makes a good person, we think about honesty, unselfishness, altruism, bravery, etc. When we think about a bad person we think about greed, dishonesty, untrustworthyness, selfishness. All the atributes that we think are good turn out to be good for the community and the attributes we think are bad are good for the individual (in the short term) and bad for the community. When you look at religions you see that they all have moral codes that benefit the strength and adhesion of the community of believers. Religious communities tend to foster tight knitt groups who cooperate within each other, often to the exclusion of other groups ond religions. Strong cooperative communities survive when fractured communities crumble. This may be one reason why natural selection favours religions and why religions have developed in most every culture around the world. Not becouse of gullable children, that is insulting not only to religious people, but also to anyone who wishes to seriously discuss evolution and social science.

Beetle

[BillyTheMountain]

Has anyone read Evolution for Everyone by David Sloan Wilson? It is a great book on evolution, religion and human behavior. He talkes alot about studying religion and human behavior from an evolutionary perspective. He does not mention any theory about natural selection favoring gullable children. A theory meant to insult religious people and not a serious scientific theory. Instead he talks about the fact that humans are cooperative in their behaviour, we survive by cooporating and living in communities. When we think about what makes a good person, we think about honesty, unselfishness, altruism, bravery, etc. When we think about a bad person we think about greed, dishonesty, untrustworthyness, selfishness. All the atributes that we think are good turn out to be good for the community and the attributes we think are bad are good for the individual (in the short term) and bad for the community. When you look at religions you see that they all have moral codes that benefit the strength and adhesion of the community of believers. Religious communities tend to foster tight knitt groups who cooperate within each other, often to the exclusion of other groups ond religions. Strong cooperative communities survive when fractured communities crumble. This may be one reason why natural selection favours religions and why religions have developed in most every culture around the world. Not becouse of gullable children, that is insulting not only to religious people, but also to anyone who wishes to seriously discuss evolution and social science.

Beetle

Oddly enough, for capitolists (where's GILBY??!), GREED IS GOOD. For Atheist Communists, greed is bad, and community is good.

I cannot wait to see what nasty thing JJuggle will attack YOU with for saying this. Watch out for JJuggle!

[SchwinnJim]

I've read the description in Job, and it could describe a lot of different animals like an Elephant, Hippo, Rhino, and others. Just because the description *sounds* like a dinosaur doesn't mean that it actually *was* a dinosaur. What in the description makes you believe that it could *only* have been a dinosaur and not some other animal?
Yes, it *could* describe different animals, but a very select few that remains in the dinosaur category... and there are plenty of them. Let's have another read, shall we?

Job 40
15 Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips,
And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18 His bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.
19 He is the first of the ways of God;
Only He who made him can bring near His sword.

Behemoth would have such strength in its “loins”, from moving around such a massive tail. The bones of a behemoth are literally like beams of bronze put into a house of high regard, and ribs just like bars of iron. Verse 19 refers to a creature that cannot be killed by human weapons, only by the hand of its Creator.

Now read the definition of a cedar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar
Fairly massive, don't you think? Having a very wide vocabulary, Job would have used other words if he were describing an animal with a smaller tail.

Now look at photos of a hippo, a rhino, and an elephant, and take notes on the differences from the above scriptural description:
1. Hippo (http://www.mammalogy.org/mil_images/images/mid/320.jpg)
- Has equally distributed weight and strength, very slightly more so in his hips.
- Has the tail of a sapling, not a cedar.
- This animal has been successfully hunted by the ancients, with human weapons.

2. Rhino (http://www.friedmanarchives.com/Animals/images/Rhino%20Rear%208x12%20300%20dpi.jpg)
- Tail is fairly wimpy, wouldn’t you agree?
- Strength implies strength, not armor as the rhino possesses.
- Harder to kill, but it’s been done as well by the ancients (cave paintings anyone?).
- Grazes like an ox, I'll give ya that one.

3. Elephant (http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PTGPOD/542697~Rear-End-of-Elephant-Posters.jpg)
- Quite the massive mammal, very strong, yet also has a very small tail.
- Does not graze like an ox.
- I’m sure Job would have said the behemoth squirted water from its long trunk, if it had one.

Conclusions:
You can dismiss the dinosaur if you want, but it is highly unlikely that the scriptural descriptions fit those three animals above. Any others?

It is not that I *believe* it was a dinosaur, it is only that it describes something CLOSEST TO a dinosaur.

--Jim---

[SchwinnJim]

I don't see anything in the above link which specifically talks about the hominid fossil record. What specifically explains the existence of Neanderthal fossils, for example? There's only one mention of the word "fossil" in the link you provide and it says that a "pre-Adamite" civilization did exist at one time, but provides no explanation for how long ago or what these humans looked like. Your source lacks scientific basis.
I left it to you to look for more resources on the subject, as that is what any good researcher would do-- to truly know all sides of the debate (there aren't just two sides by the way; Talk Origins happens to be on one far side, and Religion happens to be on another far side. I happen to be somewhere inbetween.).

As I'm sure you already know, Neanderthal fossils share much of the same features as "modern" man.
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/neander.html
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMh08.htm

"Neanderthals" semantically speaking, are what we consider the people of the pre-Adamite civilization. They lived for hundreds of years, normally, and naturally would have had dense bone, and much more bone growth than we experience in our lifetime. Modern day man, however, is living fewer days, and experiencing decay in bone growth, and overall health. If we were truly healthy, and lived hundreds of years, we too would experience denser bone as we handle harsh times, weather, environments, and hard day to day work. There are many other resources which back this up, but I'll again leave that to your efforts.

You're right, it's a bit of a stretch to claim that one species can morph into a completely different species (like from a bird to a frog), but evolutionary theory makes no such claim or prediction.
Actually, the claim is more like (for example) from dinosaur to eventually types of bird.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro-evolution

--Jim---

PS - back to Neanderthal for a minute... see attachment :D
Had to throw in a little humor somewhere... I couldn't help but throw those two photos together in photoshop. No really, if you look at a lot of photos of modern day aboriginals and africans, they share nearly the same exact features as "Neanderthals." Dead serious, my anthropology professor years back, looked like one... totally not joking. He even admitted it!

[Beetle]

Oddly enough, for capitolists (where's GILBY??!), GREED IS GOOD. For Atheist Communists, greed is bad, and community is good.

I cannot wait to see what nasty thing JJuggle will attack YOU with for saying this. Watch out for JJuggle!

Interesting enough, Adam Smith, the author of The Wealth of Nations, and one of the fathers of capitalism supported a free market system, but did not agree that unfettered greed was good. He was also the father of progressive taxation (tax rates increase as income increases) and what we now call fair trade, he called it "both-benefit" transactions. The idea is that one should not be so greedy as to cause the downfall of another.

You are right though that modern capitalism often appears to be very greedy. Capitalists tell us that their pursuit of wealth is good for the country, when often it is good for the individual.

There is always a pull between working for the good of the community and working for your own good even if it hurts the community. When accountability structures are in place, people tend to put aside that selfish (when I say selfish I mean selfish enough to steal...) impulse and do what is right. Without those structures, people are more likely to act on their selfish desires.

Religions have historically been sources of accountability among community members.

Corporate greed often takes the form of competition with other corporations, and succesfull corporations are ones that have alot of cohesion and cooperation within the company. This is where the success of natural selection lies, cooperation within the group, competition between groups.

[Beetle]

The point is that it does not matter what the list of attribute has on it, depending on the culture it will have different things on it. Within that culture, things that are seen as good, will be things that contribute to cooperation among that group.

[SchwinnJim]

Corporate greed often takes the form of competition with other corporations, and succesfull corporations are ones that have alot of cohesion and cooperation within the company.

Or the most money and least amount of conscience to where there is no limit on how many people they can screw over...

But yes, good point.

--Jim---

[MuniAddict]

a great scene from a classic film called "Inherit the wind" about the famous scopes "monkey trial".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtNdYsoool8&mode=related&search=

Spencer Tracy OWNS!

[JJuggle]

He does not mention any theory about natural selection favoring gullable children. A theory meant to insult religious people and not a serious scientific theory.
The theory as I read it was serious and not presented as so insulting to religious people. I emphasized that part on my own. It could easily be applied to people who believe what their elected officials tell them or that Tim Russert is really hard on his guests.

And for the record, some of my best friends are religious people.

[BillyTheMountain]

And for the record, some of my best friends are religious people.

Like yourself. And they may even be of different religions than you. You're a Scientific Atheist, but you hang with Atheists who believe in an afterlife, and astral projection, and stuff.

[unibabyguy]

17 He moves his tail like a cedar;

Sounds like you're interpreting the cedar to refer to the trunk part rather than to the branches or the leaves. Dinosaur tails were generally articulated and therefore could bend; the trunk of a (thick) tree does not do the same.


Conclusions:
You can dismiss the dinosaur if you want, but it is highly unlikely that the scriptural descriptions fit those three animals above. Any others?


It also fits the description of a mythical animal.

BTW you haven't mentioned which particular dinosaur species these verses are supposed to be about. Assuming it was a sauropod (which most creationist web sites seem to suggest), they did not "chew grass like an ox" since their teeth weren't built for that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth


It is not that I *believe* it was a dinosaur, it is only that it describes something CLOSEST TO a dinosaur.


I don't believe it describes a dinosaur either, so apparently we are in agreement that the bible does not mention dinosaurs. What was your point in bringing up these bible verses again?

[unibabyguy]

Modern day man, however, is living fewer days, and experiencing decay in bone growth, and overall health.


Not even remotely true. Overall the average lifespan is increasing, and we are getter taller (probably due to better nutrition and health care).

The idea that somehow Neanderthals were "healthier" because they had more robust bones is ridiculous. Neanderthals were a different species. It's sort of like saying lions are healthier than cheetahs because lions are larger.


Actually, the claim is more like (for example) from dinosaur to eventually types of bird.

Right, so what' s your objection to that?

I'm glad you put the "eventually" in there, because at first it sounded like you were thinking they made an immediate leap from one species to another.

[gsracing91]

i dont know if this has been asked looked through the thread saw nothing of it..
Can one species change into another species?
I saw the macro evolution but still can someone show me the change where rock turned into plant...
or where monkey turned into man, because isnt a monkey a different species than man?
See technically with evolution it goes like this we all came from nothing but a big fat ball of gas..
How can something and so many things that are so complex come from one big ball of gas...
Sorry if any of this has been asked before..

[monkeyman]

i dont know if this has been asked looked through the thread saw nothing of it...
Yeah, somehow the entire thread made no mention of the origin of life, or macroevolution. By the way, while we're on the subject, macroevolution is not the origin of life. It is the theory to describe how the Earth went from being populated with single-cell creatures, to us.

Can one species change into another species?
I'm gonna call this on account of appeal to ridicule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule). Most creationists/anti-evolutionists (with exceptions, of course...lostconch, for instance), love to make it seem like one day, a fish woke up and said "I think I'll walk today". It's not like that. Not at all. It's a process that takes millions (billions, really) of years.

I saw the macro evolution but still can someone show me the change where rock turned into plant...
Don't make me repeat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule)myself.

or where monkey turned into man, because isnt a monkey a different species than man?
Like I said, evolution isn't a spontaneous thing. There are still birds, and fish, and plants, and fungi, and all that other good stuff beneath us on the evolutionary ladder. Just because some organisms in that species mutated (over a verrrry long time) to be come other things doesn't mean that the non-mutated organisms were not able to reproduce.

See technically with evolution it goes like this we all came from nothing but a big fat ball of gas..
See technically, no. Like I said, evolution does not deal with the origin of life. Science (as far as I'm aware, at least) has few theories on why that first cell developed. The general consensus right now (among evolutionary scientists, lostconch) is that is was a chemical miracle. If you really looked through the thread, you should have seen mine/JJuggle's posts about the probability (not improbability) of that happening somewhere in the universe.


How can something and so many things that are so complex come from one big ball of gas...
Yay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man), more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule)!

[lostconch]

a great scene from a classic film called "Inherit the wind" about the famous scopes "monkey trial".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtNdYsoool8&mode=related&search=

Spencer Tracy OWNS!

Fire dept computer won't let us pull up You Tube, but I remember watching that movie when I was a kid, Interesting point of fact though years after the trial,, The entire scientific defense was based on a single tooth,, years later proven to be the tooth of an extinct pig,, same stuff still goes on today just much more sophisticated,, I'll definetely check out the snippet when I get back to the house

[BillyTheMountain]

Fire dept computer won't let us pull up You Tube,

Prolly a good thing. You don't want to have to get dressed and run to a fire straight from the videos....

[BillyTheMountain]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirsig's_metaphysics_of_quality

Robert Pirsig defines ascending order of morality from inorganic, biological, social to intellectual patterns.

Inorganic patterns: non-living things
Biological patterns: living things
Social patterns: behaviours, habits, rituals, institutions.
Intellectual patterns: ideas

"Pirsig describes evolution as the moral progression of these patterns of value. For example, a biological pattern overcoming an inorganic pattern (e.g. bird flight which overcomes gravity) is a moral thing because a biological pattern is a higher form of evolution. Likewise an intellectual pattern of value overcoming a social one (e.g. Civil Rights) is a moral development because intellect is a higher form of evolution than society.

Pirsig claimed that the traditional Subject Object Metaphysics (SOM) of Western philosophy and science is problematic because it does not clearly recognize the superior morality of intellect over society and society over biology by its artificial distancing of the subject from the object, of fact from value. Pirsig claims that it is the conflict between the newly dominant intellectual patterns and the (previously dominant) social patterns which have led to many of the problems of the 20th century."

[JJuggle]

Robert Pirsig defines ascending order of morality from inorganic, biological, social to intellectual patterns.


Billy,

I am fascinated by this even if I don't fully understand it. I enjoy Pirsig's work.

I am not comfortable with the term morality because I associate it with religion. I'm not entirely sure what a better word would be.

That said, I have for a long time wondered about the seemingly contradictory claims made by some that humans are a higher order creature and so have dominion over the earth while at the same time the same people, when it is convenient, claim that were are after all animals. I'm not convinced that we've gotten past the biological let alone the social problems.

Many would claim, for example, that we must be monogamous because it is immoral not to be and we are not animals after all. Many of the same people however have no qualms about how animals are treated in the production of our food and see nothing immoral in the infliction of their suffering. We're animals after all, they say, we eat meat.

So, what obligations are inherent in our advanced state? Does our superiority come with any advantages except good shopping and fine literature and music?

[BillyTheMountain]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirsig's_metaphysics_of_quality

Robert Pirsig defines ascending order of morality from inorganic, biological, social to intellectual patterns.

Inorganic patterns: non-living things
Biological patterns: living things
Social patterns: behaviours, habits, rituals, institutions.
Intellectual patterns: ideas

"Pirsig claims that it is the conflict between the newly dominant intellectual patterns and the (previously dominant) social patterns which have led to many of the problems of the 20th century."

Raphael,

I encourage you to go to Pirsig, even just to what I included.

It might seem the atom bomb is an inorganic pattern which changes everything above it (Biological, Social and Intellectual patterns) back to inorganic patterns, so it's anti-evolutionary.

Monogamy is neither a Biological, Social and Intellectual pattern, and it is practiced in no society's that I know of. At best, the Western nations practice "serial monogamy," which is really not one-mate, which monogamy means.

Civil Rights is an intellectual pattern of value overcoming a social one of unfairness.

humans are not innately a higher order creature, but have the capacity to apply intellect over social and biological patterns they had previously been stuck in. In torturing animals, humans are on par with their biological equals.

[JJuggle]

Raphael,

I encourage you to go to Pirsig, even just to what I included.

It might seem the atom bomb is an inorganic pattern which changes everything above it (Biological, Social and Intellectual patterns) back to inorganic patterns, so it's anti-evolutionary.

Monogamy is neither a Biological, Social and Intellectual pattern, and it is practiced in no society's that I know of. At best, the Western nations practice "serial monogamy," which is really not one-mate, which monogamy means.

Civil Rights is an intellectual pattern of value overcoming a social one of unfairness.

humans are not innately a higher order creature, but have the capacity to apply intellect over social and biological patterns they had previously been stuck in. In torturing animals, humans are on par with their biological equals.
Billy, this is off topic, but I'm fascinated by the authority with which you speak. There isn't a single "I think", "I believe", or "in my opinion", in the above. Just statements of "fact". And you respond to my obvious wonderings as though I were making statements of fact that require correction rather than questions that beg for give and take.

I like Pirsig because he possesses humility.

Are you coming to the Unithon this year?

[BillyTheMountain]

I like Pirsig because he possesses humility.

Are you coming to the Unithon this year?

raphael,

I noticed in your post above there isn't a single "I think", "I believe", or "in my opinion", in the above. Just statements of "fact".

Humility is accurate self-evaluation.

How do you know Pirsig possesses humility? Are you suggesting I do not? Why stoop to ad hominem fallacy?

To ride with your second threadjack in one post: I'd love to do the Unithon this year, but there are complications I'll PM you about.

Billy
Billy

[JJuggle]

raphael,

I noticed in your post above there isn't a single "I think", "I believe", or "in my opinion", in the above.
Actually if you reread the post you'll see that there is one of each.

To ride with your second threadjack in one post: I'd love to do the Unithon this year, but there are complications I'll PM you about.
We will all be saddened if you can not attend.

[BillyTheMountain]

Actually if you reread the post you'll see that there is one of each.

Ha Ha. Very funny.

Too bad no one here is interested in Pirsig.

Maybe you'd like to co-author Zen and the Art of Unicycle Maintenance with me?

[JJuggle]

Maybe you'd like to co-author Zen and the Art of Unicycle Maintenance with me?
I'd love to but I'll have to be that other guy who was offended by the idea of a shim made from a beer can. Turns out I had my pedals on backwards for a year. Fortunately I hardly ever ride so it turned out not to be a big deal.

[BillyTheMountain]

I'd love to but I'll have to be that other guy who was offended by the idea of a shim made from a beer can. Turns out I had my pedals on backwards for a year. Fortunately I hardly ever ride so it turned out not to be a big deal.

Since you always ride backwards, not a big deal is quite an understatement.

But I guess we could do a point-counter point book, where we could each show our horror at the attitude and actions of the other. !EEK!

[BillyTheMountain]

Billy, this is off topic, but I'm fascinated by the authority with which you speak. There isn't a single "I think", "I believe", or "in my opinion", in the above. Just statements of "fact". And you respond to my obvious wonderings as though I were making statements of fact that require correction rather than questions that beg for give and take.

I like Pirsig because he possesses humility.

Are you coming to the Unithon this year?

Humility is accurate self-assessment.

Inserting "I think", "I believe", or "in my opinion", does not show humility.

[tobbogonist]

I think the next logical step for the evolution of crocodiles is a sideways Jaw. Then the only thing safe would be a sleeping Zebra.

[unidunc]

heres a little bit of fun - http://walter.no.sapo.pt/humor/2001-06-28/humor-044.gif

[sxbud138]

I havent seen anything about the new superbugs that are now popping up from our over medicating everybody. I have read that the superbugs are resistant to all of our current antibiotics. Is something like that going to be the end of us all ! Are we evolving enough to beat something like this if science fails! or will humans by changing the world to fast be putting us at risk to something as simple as a infection or flu ?

[phlegm]

DAYTON, TN—A steady stream of devoted evolutionists continued to gather in this small Tennessee town today to witness what many believe is an image of Charles Darwin—author of The Origin Of Species and founder of the modern evolutionary movement—made manifest on a concrete wall in downtown Dayton.

"I brought my baby to touch the wall, so that the power of Darwin can purify her genetic makeup of undesirable inherited traits," said Darlene Freiberg, one among a growing crowd assembled here to see the mysterious stain, which appeared last Monday on one side of the Rhea County Courthouse. The building was also the location of the famed "Scopes Monkey Trial" and is widely considered one of Darwinism's holiest sites. "Forgive me, O Charles, for ever doubting your Divine Evolution. After seeing this miracle of limestone pigmentation with my own eyes, my faith in empirical reasoning will never again be tested."

Added Freiberg, "Behold the power and glory of the scientific method!"

More here. (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin)

[JJuggle]

More here. (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin)
The Onion always comes through. I bet Billy is kicking himself for not thinking of this.

[peleschramm]

The Onion always comes through. I bet Billy is kicking himself for not thinking of this.

Yeah.

That can't have been written by anybody but Billy :p.

[disgruntleddave]

Seems like there isn't much of a debate going on here (at least recently). Which is good, because there really is no debate on this issue. There are those who aren't informed, delusional, or simply refute evidence in favor of fantasy, and then there are those who see a sound theory that makes predictions which are verified.

[Jerrick]

Its not that black and white.

Act your age.

Haha.