It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I will answer every question about evolution you have

page: 14
24
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
in your opinion, what are the likely consequences of our applying our mechanical and chemical prowess to...darwin-proof ourselves, if you will. do you think this poses a risk of stalling us? is there a possibility we could hijack evolution entirely and reengineer the human race?


Actually, I've answered a similar question earlier. Here's the quote


Q: Homo sapiens: what will our next step be evolution-wise?

A: If you read some of my earlier comments, it will answer this question. But, to directly address it, it would be determined by the environment around us. Everything living adapts to it's surrounding, if it doesn't it ends up being weeded out through natural selection.

Humans are an interesting species, because we've cutout a lot of natural selection by living in ways that prevent the environment from intruding on our survival (at least, to the best of our abilities).

Another thing to note would be that Evolution doesn't occur at a species wide level, it actually occurs at a population level. If a species is widespread enough to have groups of their population living in a specific, but different, environment from one another, each population would adapt to their own, specific, environments.

It's one reason we have so much variation in Humans to begin with. Skin colour, Hair texture, muscular features, facial features, red blood cell count, viral immunity, and so on. The variation is do to these different environments.

Some technological futurists have supposed that the convergence between humans and technology is our next step of evolution, and may be our last step before become a total 'singularity', where we essentially surpass our biological forms and become machines, to some extent.



originally posted by: TzarChasm
...and one more thing - is there any compelling evidence that a sentient agency has been steering evolution this whole time? for the benefit of those reading.


If there is, I haven't personally seen it, and it is not a largely accepted hypothesis.




posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


Maybe he could respond to the quote from the expert? I don't think he will, he'll just repeat the original claim.

Leading one inevitably to the suspicion that he doesn't actually understand either the quote or the original claim.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm


what are the likely consequences of our applying our mechanical and chemical prowess to...darwin-proof ourselves

It can't be done.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

If you go on like this you will be a candidate for sainthood.

Some years ago I used to rent a flat from a lady who was a devout, spiritual Buddhist. Every morning she would give a daané to the rats and crows of the neighbourhood — she'd leave platters of leftovers out on the street for the crows and another platter next to a sewer grating for the rats. And believe me, both were highly appreciated.

The creationist recipients of your daané don't seem nearly as grateful, but the fact that you go on feeding them so diligently, and with aliments of the highest grade, is surely as meritorious. Extending charity to those widely regarded by others as pests is one of the highest forms of compassion.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Thanks for the compliment


However, I don't really view them as pests. Mainly, it's just a matter of misinformation. Many others here who are not creationists, and who do accept evolution, had very similar (or even identical) questions. So I don't really blame the people themselves, but rather, where their confusions have stemmed from. Some people honestly and simply didn't know, and ignorance is nothing to point and laugh at (as we were all ignorant of all topics at some point in our lives). However, some of the confusion stems from others who press forward the information as absolute fact, and worse, irrefutable. Those are really the ones to blame and view as pests.

Admittedly, I still feel quite frustrated when I feel as though I've explained something very clearly several times, and 'this' time was the most informative, and then the explanation and effort was simply dismissed. I try to keep composure when it happens, though, as the same reason for that mentality stems from the same place they found the misinformation, so again, I can't really blame them for it.
edit on 5/12/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147


Admittedly, I still feel quite frustrated when I feel as though I've explained something very clearly several times, and 'this' time was the most informative, and then the explanation and effort was simply dismissed. I try to keep composure when it happens, though, as the same reason for that mentality stems from the same place they found the misinformation, so again, I can't really blame them for it.

Your Certificate of Canonization must surely be in the mail.

What I see here is a bunch of hardened trolls determined to wear you down and exhaust you.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Hah, I doubt it. There are plenty more influential people than me whom are also more knowledgeable. I mainly do it simply because I like talking about the subject, and in some circumstances I may actually learn something too.

I don't really think there has been any trolls yet. [Name Removed], but.... Poe's law? It's pretty clear that religion, of any flavor, can be excessively influential to the point that it's harmful to the follower. Some people here on ATS have admitted they used to hold these very positions until they really opened their mind to possibilities outside their world view.

edit on 13-12-2015 by alien because: ...please don't personally go at other Members



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   
I certainly couldn't do it. There's someone in another thread saying single-payer healthcare is bad and communistic and so forth and it's making me want to bathe myself in sodium hydroxide.

Though yes, I don't think most people here are trolls. While I cannot really ascertain the mindset required of the religious, they likely see us as vice versa.
edit on 6/12/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn
In depth contemplation of the mindsets of ATS members may be hazardous to one's mindset.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Point taken.

"Stare into the abyss" and all that.

@Ghost: How much more refinement do you think there is for the theory of evolution to go through?



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Well, we can't really answer that because we don't really know how much refinement there could be until we actually find issues.

However, we could also answer this by saying 'it can use an infinite amount of refinement' if we're looking at the fossil record. We've only really been searching and categorizing fossils for a short period of time, and there is always room for more discoveries referring to them.


__________________________

Oh.. and Astyanax in my research I found some more responses to your question you made a few pages back (about how evolution accounts for art and religion. Again, it's rather speculative. Nevertheless, here's that response:

Art:
~ Art is a form of creativity, and creativity has plenty of evolutionary advantages (for example, allowing us to think up new and better tools).

Religion:
~ A fear of death has obvious survival advantages and is probably as old as emotions. When intellect evolved to the point that imagination became possible, we could start thinking about alternatives.
~ Humans and other primates live in dominance hierarchies. A social structure with "higher" and "lower" beings is part of our genes. We can always point to other animals as lower beings, but sometimes a higher being requires something unobvious.
~ With the origin of symbolic thinking (which language requires), the abstract higher beings could be thought of in more specific terms.
~ With language, gods could be talked about. From there, religion developed via cultural evolution.
~ Fear of the unknown gives further reason for believing in gods. Dealings with a god, such as sacrificial offering or intercessory prayer, allow one the impression of some influence over events that are beyond one's control.

here's some references for some further reading, if you're interested.

~ Cullen, B. 1998. Parasite ecology and the evolution of religion. In Heylighten, F. (ed.), The Evolution of Complexity. Link
~ Gottsch, J. D. 2001. Mutation, selection, and vertical transmission of theistic memes in religious canons. J Memetics
~ Boyer, Pascal. 2001. Religion Explained. New York: Basic Books.
~ Burkert, Walter. 1996. Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of biology in early religions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (It concentrates on early cultural aspects of religion but still has some relevance to religion's origin.)
~ Dunbar, Robin. 2003. Evolution: Five big questions: 5. What's God got to do with it? New Scientist 178(2399) (14 June): 38-39.
~ Konner, Melvin. 2002. The Tangled Wing: Biological constraints on the human spirit, New York: Henry Holt and Co.

edit on 6/12/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Many thanks, Ghost.

This, from one of your sources, is just great!


It is argued that the blanket view of religion as a disease, advocated by Dawkins, is inconsistent with the principles of parasite ecology. These principles state that vertically transmitted parasites evolve towards benign, symbiotic states, while horizontally transmitted parasites increase their virulence. Most of the world's established religions are transmitted vertically, from parents to children, and are therefore expected to be benign towards their hosts. Yet, certain horizontally transmitted cults, such as the Aum Shinrikyo, seem to effectively exploit their hosts in a way similar to an infectious disease.

The evolution of parasitic memes towards symbiosis is actually a great explainer. Religions spread principally by memetic transmission (i.e. horizontally) in the early stages of their life-cycles, and principally by genetic transmission (i.e. vertically) in their later, mature stages.

Look Judaism, Christianity and Islam and you see snapshots of three stages of the process.


edit on 6/12/15 by Astyanax because: a source is not a link.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147
Wow! had to log in to star this post!

I smell a new thread coming on!



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Well, we can't really answer that because we don't really know how much refinement there could be until we actually find issues.

However, we could also answer this by saying 'it can use an infinite amount of refinement' if we're looking at the fossil record. We've only really been searching and categorizing fossils for a short period of time, and there is always room for more discoveries referring to them.


__________________________

Oh.. and Astyanax in my research I found some more responses to your question you made a few pages back (about how evolution accounts for art and religion. Again, it's rather speculative. Nevertheless, here's that response:

Art:
~ Art is a form of creativity, and creativity has plenty of evolutionary advantages (for example, allowing us to think up new and better tools).

Religion:
~ A fear of death has obvious survival advantages and is probably as old as emotions. When intellect evolved to the point that imagination became possible, we could start thinking about alternatives.
~ Humans and other primates live in dominance hierarchies. A social structure with "higher" and "lower" beings is part of our genes. We can always point to other animals as lower beings, but sometimes a higher being requires something unobvious.
~ With the origin of symbolic thinking (which language requires), the abstract higher beings could be thought of in more specific terms.
~ With language, gods could be talked about. From there, religion developed via cultural evolution.
~ Fear of the unknown gives further reason for believing in gods. Dealings with a god, such as sacrificial offering or intercessory prayer, allow one the impression of some influence over events that are beyond one's control.

here's some references for some further reading, if you're interested.

~ Cullen, B. 1998. Parasite ecology and the evolution of religion. In Heylighten, F. (ed.), The Evolution of Complexity. Link
~ Gottsch, J. D. 2001. Mutation, selection, and vertical transmission of theistic memes in religious canons. J Memetics
~ Boyer, Pascal. 2001. Religion Explained. New York: Basic Books.
~ Burkert, Walter. 1996. Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of biology in early religions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (It concentrates on early cultural aspects of religion but still has some relevance to religion's origin.)
~ Dunbar, Robin. 2003. Evolution: Five big questions: 5. What's God got to do with it? New Scientist 178(2399) (14 June): 38-39.
~ Konner, Melvin. 2002. The Tangled Wing: Biological constraints on the human spirit, New York: Henry Holt and Co.


Way to take all the magic out of theology.

edit on 7-12-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Way to take all the magic out of theology.


Ghost147: destroying the illogical basis for belief in magical beings since 2015.




posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Thank you ghost147 for your continual efforts to combat the rampant misconceptions plaguing the common man's grasp of evolutionary theory. ATS salutes you.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
maybe you could do a piece on the top three or top five abiogenesis theories currently in circulation among our most prestigious research facilities? To fill in some of the gaps left by evolutionary theory with educated guesswork. more educated that some of the gap-based hypotheses floating around.
edit on 13-12-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

The answer on the eye is really interesting mate. your major attempt to answer all questions on evolution is admirable. Well done! My first question is about the evolution of the eye as well. I scanned the wiki link on the eye quite quickly so I could be confused on this. However, I saw that the presence of a system of neurons pre-existed before the evolution of the eye in each case. How did this occur? Why should neurons go to locations where there was no stimulus?

I was of an understanding that any chromophore would need to be recycled in order for re-use (such as retinol). This would need a system of enzymes and chemical potential energy reagents such as GTP or ATP which could utilise free energy in order to regenerate the chromophore.

Finally, using the paradigmatic gradualistic and natural selection motif, what are the selection pressures which would kill off all organisms that have poor mechanisms for detecting light when we still have these organisms existing today quite happily?

These questions are in a genuine atmosphere where I am learning new things and I will appreciate your replies. Thank you?




top topics



 
24
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join