Is Evolution another Deceit?

Originally posted by melatonin
You also make it sound like fish, reptiles, mammals, and birds just suddenly appeared, when, of course, they didn't.

Not specifically but we did see (via fossil record) the sudden appearance of creatures with head, tail, and limbs. These creatures had no predecessor in the fossil history.

For example take the trilobite. It had legs, gills, antanne, eyes (some),a mouth, and molted just like a lobster when it outgrew it's shell. Oddly this complex life form basically appeared out of no where. Where was the evolution chain? Did it evolve directly from algae in a single step?



[edit on 11-4-2007 by dbates]

good question. answer: we have extremely little of the fossil record at our fingertips. It is not a clear cut record of progression from one species to another, there are gaps millions of years old. Also if its predsessor was a softshelled invertribate odds are good any fossils of it are even more rare.

Originally posted by DarkSide

A scientific theory is not a guess though

It's not necessarily fact either.

By the way, I have no fear of evolution being true. Evolution being true doesn't change what I believe one iota.

[edit on 11-4-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

I have posted this before with a summary about an article I read that has helped me understand our evolution better. I honestly do not think that evolution is deceit, like others have pointed out, we have to adapt to our environment as it changes. Whether it is the hand of god or not, that I have no idea, but fossil records are not as reliable in looking for direct ancestors, as is genetic make up changes in human history. To put it simple, our history runs the risk of having the same traits and characteristics, at different points in time, being present. Genetic make up shows that as the environment changed, certain traits changed and disappeared only to reappear later in the future. This is why the claim that fossil records succeed one another in a straight line, may be flawed. As for being created, I do believe that also, but like someone mentioned, evolution and creation seem to go hand and hand. If we were created, I think the "missing link", is where we did have an intervention by some outside force, be it God or extraterrestrials.

Originally posted by dbates
Oddly this complex life form basically appeared out of no where. Where was the evolution chain? Did it evolve directly from algae in a single step?

It didn't really just appear from nowhere. Complex life was already around. I don't think we can piece together what we can for much later periods, but it was nothing like a case of no life, then life.

www.asa3.org...

"[theory |ˈθēərē; ˈθi(ə)rē| noun ( pl. -ries) a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained : Darwin's theory of evolution. • a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based : a theory of education | music theory. • an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action : my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged. • Mathematics a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject. PHRASES in theory used in describing what is supposed to happen or be possible, usually with the implication that it does not in fact happen : in theory, things can only get better; in practice, they may well become a lot worse. ORIGIN late 16th cent.(denoting a mental scheme of something to be done): via late Latin from Greek theōria ‘contemplation, speculation,’ from theōros ‘spectator.]"

From the American Oxford Dictionary

hypothesis, thesis, theory, law. A theory does not become a theory until it has been throughly and repeatedly studied and verified. It is for all intent and purpose one step below a law. Most people seem to confuse hypothesis and theory which only goes to highlight the horrible ignorance about science in this country today.

"[hypothesis |hīˈpäθəsis| noun ( pl. -ses |-ˌsēz|) a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation : professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis. • Philosophy a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. ORIGIN late 16th cent.: via late Latin from Greek hupothesis ‘foundation,’ from hupo ‘under’ + thesis ‘placing.]"

From the American Oxford Dictionary

[edit on 11-4-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by undo
The list is endless and evolutionary theory is the pass key to all this killing. Why? Because it's now one big survival of the fittest scenario. It's no longer about humanity. Now it's about survival of the guys with the most cash, the most education and the most power. Period.

I'm sorry, but you are so hopelessly wrong with this.

The biggest killer on this planet of humans, across the ages with the exception of diseases is religon - or should I say acts carried out in the name of religion.

Its certainly not evolutionary theory. The churches have done more to hold back progress in the name of their power base and belief than any other insitutions, and in some respects they are still responsible for thousands if not millions of deaths in Africa due to catholic beliefs on contraception and the use of condoms.

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by undo
The list is endless and evolutionary theory is the pass key to all this killing. Why? Because it's now one big survival of the fittest scenario. It's no longer about humanity. Now it's about survival of the guys with the most cash, the most education and the most power. Period.

I'm sorry, but you are so hopelessly wrong with this.

The biggest killer on this planet of humans, across the ages with the exception of diseases is religon - or should I say acts carried out in the name of religion.

Its certainly not evolutionary theory. The churches have done more to hold back progress in the name of their power base and belief than any other insitutions, and in some respects they are still responsible for thousands if not millions of deaths in Africa due to catholic beliefs on contraception and the use of condoms.

Actually, institutions kill people. Once it is established in the mainstream of the culture that one idea is better than another, the new idea tries to eradicate the old one and anyone attached to it. Been going on for thousands of years, under all kinds of banners, including religion and government. The problem I'm discussing with you is the difference between revering life and not revering it, based on an ideology. If you don't revere it, it's alot easier to turn off that machine when grandpa is dying and the docs say he's not gonna make it anyway. It's easier to justify starving a persistent vegetative state patient to death. It's easier to insist your traditional citizenry, who you already know prefers male children to female, only have one child (think of all those baby producers that were taken out of the circle of life. not only lowering the population boom, but removing the potential baby makers entirely, like so many head of fertile female cows on a cattle ranch).

It's easier,if life has no purpose other than one long survival of the fittest episode, to concoct euthanasia scenarios, holocausts, and massive genocides. You become a thing, rather than a human. Life is now only as important as the amount of the monetary value attached to that life.

Your example of the people in Africa goes much deeper than simply religion. It goes back to the idea that, were we to actually care about one another again, the people in Africa would not be suffering in the first place. I realize a certain amount of this is not realistic but if you don't want to make babies, you don't have sexual intercourse. I think that's pretty clear cut and they certainly aren't stupid enough to think otherwise. Just because you think their lives are not worth living, doesn't mean they would agree, even if in abject poverty and squalor.



[edit on 12-4-2007 by undo]

Your attempt to blame every wrong on a theory that simply explains how lifeforms adapt to a changing environment is laughable at best.

If you don't revere it, it's alot easier to turn off that machine when grandpa is dying and the docs say he's not gonna make it anyway. It's easier to justify starving a persistent vegetative state patient to death.

It's more to do with respect. What if your son was paralyzed to a point that he could only move a thumb, and was begging to be able to die, but COULDN'T, and went on suffering EACH DAY.

It's easier,if life has no purpose other than one long survival of the fittest episode

Survival of the fittest doesn't really apply to humans anymore, but whatever

Your example of the people in Africa goes much deeper than simply religion. It goes back to the idea that, were we to actually care about one another again, the people in Africa would not be suffering in the first place. I realize a certain amount of this is not realistic but if you don't want to make babies, you don't have sexual intercourse. I think that's pretty clear cut and they certainly aren't stupid enough to think otherwise. Just because you think their lives are not worth living, doesn't mean they would agree, even if in abject poverty and squalor

Naive and simplistic. Africa's problems are a lot more complicated and serious than that. Nothing to do with "caring" or not. Also, humans are like bonobo's and other apes, they have sex for fun and pleasure too

Originally posted by undo
I realize a certain amount of this is not realistic but if you don't want to make babies, you don't have sexual intercourse. I think that's pretty clear cut and they certainly aren't stupid enough to think otherwise. Just because you think their lives are not worth living, doesn't mean they would agree, even if in abject poverty and squalor.
[edit on 12-4-2007 by undo]

First up, there appears to be an implied sentiment in this section. I choose to belive its badly written, but if it isn't, please point out to me where I have said that peoples lives are not worth living.

Secondly, you appear to have completely ruled out recreational sex in your statement, which is something humans have been doing for millions of years and any attempt to remove that from the overall equation is a false premise.

Thirdly, AIDs in Africa is not just a problem limited to areas of "poverty and squalor", its much more widespread across the continent and, as I said previously, various churches views - which continue to this day - on contraception, coupled with poor education on the subject, is not helping at all. Thats established fact and nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution as far as I can tell.

The theory of evolution is an old idea we see played out in reality, every day. That's the point. If we didn't treat life as a flat out survival of the fittest run, these things wouldn't happen (as much as they do, anyway). if the guy cared more about the girl and both their health and ability to raise children. if the girl cared enough about the guy and so on. if people cared enough to educate them. if if if. but that's the difference between theory of evolution thinking and actually caring about each other. instead of asking us to step beyond that, and value human life, it asks us to view life as a meaningless and endless series of evolutionary steps, where we madly dash between survival scenarios, singularly and collectively, at the expense of whoever.

Originally posted by undo
but that's the difference between theory of evolution thinking and actually caring about each other. instead of asking us to step beyond that, and value human life, it asks us to view life as a meaningless and endless series of evolutionary steps, where we madly dash between survival scenarios, singularly and collectively, at the expense of whoever.

Do you really think that Malinga in some Tanzanian fishing village really thinks about evolutionary theory before he asks to trade sex for fish from some hungry cashless mother?

You're trying to blame human ills on some scientific theory that was first formed about 150 years ago. I didn't realise that life was so much better in the dark ages...

Originally posted by neformore
The biggest killer on this planet of humans, across the ages with the exception of diseases is religon - or should I say acts carried out in the name of religion.

Sure, but if evolution is true then it's just another scenario of the weaker members of the species dying out. We should all cheer that these weak DNA strands are removed from our race, thereby helping us to carry on in the future.

Possibly religion is a great control mechanism that's evolved to help control population and ensure survival of the species. If we weren't always having wars and killing each other then the planet would be overcrowded and the entire race of humans would die out. Clearly religion is one of the greatest accomplishments of evolution. Societies that have organized religion tend to be the stronger ones. We can only conclude that nations without these religious cores are the weaker of the species.

Originally posted by melatonin


Do you really think that Malinga in some Tanzanian fishing village really thinks about evolutionary theory before he asks to trade sex for fish from some hungry cashless mother?

You're trying to blame human ills on some scientific theory that was first formed about 150 years ago. I didn't realise that life was so much better in the dark ages...

What I'm saying is, it's a natural state of the human to be in constant survival of the fittest mode, which is why evolutionary theory seems so logical . the problem is, we have the capacity to rise above that state as humans. if our science always develops in that one direction and lends itself to our philosophy to the point where it becomes a moral code backed by accepted academia, no one recovers the loss of their humanity.

Originally posted by undo
What I'm saying is, it's a natural state of the human to be in constant survival of the fittest mode, which is why evolutionary theory seems so logical . the problem is, we have the capacity to rise above that state as humans. if our science always develops in that one direction and lends itself to our philosophy to the point where it becomes a moral code backed by accepted academia, no one recovers the loss of their humanity.

Evolutionary theory is one model of one aspect of the real-world, in this case, the development of the diversity of life over time. Like atomic theory, it provides no moral code.

Science helps stop unwanted babies, save sick babies, vaccinate against diseases and viruses, fight bacterial infections etc etc.

Science doesn't condone 'survival of the fittest' in society. Some economic theories might though.

[edit on 12-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin


Evolutionary theory is one model of one aspect of the real-world, in this case, the development of the diversity of life over time. Like atomic theory, it provides no moral code.

Science helps stop unwanted babies, save sick babies, vaccinate against diseases and viruses, fight bacterial infections etc etc.

Science doesn't condone 'survival of the fittest' in society. Some economic theories might though.

[edit on 12-4-2007 by melatonin]

It insinuates a moral code by virtue of the explanation. You're only as accountable as your need to survive. It provides no moral compass, at the same time, suggesting one of its own, reinforcing the idea that life is really just about survival to the next evolutionary leap.

At this point, the big heads get together and decide what that leap involves, set the parameters, be they genetic or philosophical, and using survival of the fittest theory, determine who's lives are worth living and who's are not. In addition, your value as an individual human is determined with more and more exacting definition. This they call evolutionary progress, but it's really just another survival of the fittest scenario, with a handful of people deciding for everyone else, whether their lives are of any evolutionary value.

Science can be both good and bad, as we all know. For all our advancements in the salvation of human life, we decided to create one object that renders all the rest of them moot. And we didn't stop there. We decided to create various versions of that. Now we can kill everyone on the planet in several different horrific ways.

Originally posted by undo
It insinuates a moral code by virtue of the explanation. You're only as accountable as your need to survive. It provides no moral compass, at the same time, suggesting one of its own, reinforcing the idea that life is really just about survival to the next evolutionary leap.

It also suggests you should have as many babies as possible. But most of western society uses other methods to stop this.

Evolutionary theory does not really permeate cognition and behaviour in everyday life, which was the point of my original comment. But we do have survival mechanisms and behaviours that are in place due to evolutionary processes.

Originally posted by melatonin

Evolutionary theory does not really permeate cognition and behaviour in everyday life, which was the point of my original comment.

I realize its not a conscience effort. It's the natural state. This is the problem. A science that backs up the natural state, explains its behaviors, offers solutions with the same behaviors as the guideline, ends up creating one survival of the fittest scenario after the other, till we have weapons of mass destruction. This evolutionary leap, from stick and stones to atom bombs and airborne ebola virus scenarios, completely annihilates the reason to survive to begin with. It's such a twisted up mess because it relies on the base state of the human, the natural state, the survival mode AT ALL COSTS.

Not that the religious will change their mind (nor am I trying to change their mind really, I just want to give more proof of why evolution is much more than exodus).

T-Rex linked to Modern Birds

Undoubtedly those against evolution will point out that it's not exact, that it's still in question, etc etc.

However science has a habit of improving and more and more proof shows up. People can (and will) push their head deeper into the sand to ignore the things they don't like.

I prefer to think of it like the computer in War Games (the film):

At first, he was in survival of the fittest mode only.
His reasoning faculties were not factoring
anything but survival in the guise of a first strike, which is pretty
much the natural state of humans.
So the humans taught him to look more carefully at his
problem.

His solution was poignant:

"The only way to win the game is not to play."


[edit on 12-4-2007 by undo]