We were made in the likeness and image of the supreme beings that created us millennium ago. And therefore, because we were created by supreme
beings, I don't see how "evolution" and "modern humans" can be related in any way.
I prefer to think of evolution as brutal and unfair. Where the weak and unsuited don't survive or get to reproduce to pass on their genes. Thats why
I apply social darwinism whenever possible. No peace and love hippie poop here.
I am tired of getting idiot replies to me being an evolutionist. That's all I get when they ask me what I believe in, is disrespect towards my
belief. Not once have I disrespected someone's beliefs, I don't get why I shouldn't get the same respect I give everyone else.
Am I to assume that you believe the bible is incorrect or fake?
That is partially correct to assume. I believe some of it is not real, yes, but historically, many of the people where real. I believe in Jesus, like
I do Buddha, or Socrates. Buddha was a real person, so why can't Jesus be?
Please don't anthropomorphize or moralize evolution. It's not accurate. Not by a longshot. You might as well be moralizing Brownian motion, or
seeking life lessons from Radiation.
1. Do not kill from the ones own species, for it goes against nature. Killing of ones own species brings down society.
In-species killings is quite common in nature. Female Praying Mantis kill their mates during copulation. Male Lions kill the cubs of other lions.
Chimpanzees organize raiding parties and organized aggressive strikes against other groups of chimps.
2. Only take what one needs, for it messes up the equilibrium of life, and the system of nature.
How can you even suggest such a think in the face of the Kudzu vine in the south, or Asian Carp posing a serious threat to the ecosystem of the Great
3. Respect your fellow beings, animals and humans a like.
Try it. You'll find your respect poorly reciprocated.
4. Your home is my home, and your fathers home, damage the Earth, and you destroy the life and freedom of the planet.
Evolution has nothing to say about freedom. In a broad sense, segregation and isolation can promote evolution by allowing new alleles in each to pile
on successively without a means of sharing them with neighboring populations. Eventually this leads to speciation as the genetic differences between
the two populations eventually become too great over multiple generations to allow later interbreeding even if the populations did come back into
contact at some point in the distant future.
And what do you mean by "damage the earth"? You ARE the Earth. Every living creature is made of the same elements and molecules which compose the
Earth - and will decay back into it after death. Further, "Thou shalt not pollute" is a bold claim to attribute to evolution when it's the Oxygen
Catastrophe (perhaps the worst organically caused environmental disaster in Earth's history) which lead directly to the Cambrian Explosion.
We... we only think of oxygen as a necessary gas for survival because we are the descendants of those organisms which could adapt to it. Most life at
the time (which was still primarily single-cellular) didn't survive. Even afterward, the increasing oxygen in the atmosphere reacted with the iron
deposits on the surface, causing them to oxidize and decay - running off into the world's oceans turning them a nasty orangeish-brown which can still
be seen in the red iron bands in the strata layers. Even after amphibians had made it to land, and arthropods dominated the landscape - it took quite
a while for the oxygen levels to diminish from levels that were around three times higher than they are today.
What do you think that did to the early carboniferous forests when lightning storms rolled through? Yeah... flash, bang, burn was not uncommon.
Especially considering how much more prevalent and violent those storms could be due to the shorter rotational period of the Earth back then.
Evolution doesn't have to be a bad thing.
Evolution is not good or bad. It just is. You know what would make Evolution a bad thing? Turning it into a religion. Of course, it would just be the
silly interpretative and moralized belief structures of men projected onto some other arbitrary and mindless mechanistic process of the universe.
Might as well be worshiping the lightning bolts and thunder of gathering storms again for all the enlightenment you'll get.
Lasheic was quicker, but I also think the points you have mentioned have nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the wrong biological discipline to
base a humane society upon. Applying Darwinistic principles in the society would result in a Hitlerian state.
Killing within the species (1) can sometimes become an evolutionary advantage. Here a few examples which can be explained with the evolutionary
Female arthropods sometimes kill and eat their males after the copula. They gain useful resources, for the egg development. This will increase the
survival chances for their offspring.
Some sharks eat their siblings within the mothers body. Only the best gene combinations will be fit enough, to lead a predatory life in the ocean.
These survivors will start larger and stronger, if they have feeded upon their brothers and sisters.
Infanticide is also a widespread gruesome practice. It doesn't help the species, but males, which kill the offspring from their rivals, will increase
the chance to pass on their own killer genes to the next generation. en.wikipedia.org...
Your points 2-4 are not part of the evolutionary theory. If you want a biological justification for a humane society, you will more likely find it
within the field of ecology.
Originally posted by Totalstranger
I prefer to think of evolution as brutal and unfair.
I'm suspicious of your post being just troll-bait... but regardless, I'll respond.
Reality doesn't care what you prefer to think. It just is. It can be gentle and belligerent. Fair - and unjust. It can be both simultaneously,
because it is neither. It doesn't care. It can't care. Appearances of gentility and aggressiveness are just subjective perceptions of the
circumstances of an objective moment.
Where the weak and unsuited don't survive or get to reproduce to pass on their genes.
Subjective. Adaptation doesn't favor force or favor - it just works, or doesn't. It produces both Tigers and Tree Sloths.
Thats why I apply social darwinism whenever possible. No peace and love hippie poop here.
Even DARWIN didn't endorse Social Darwinism. And since Darwin's time, the theory of Evolution makes little concordance with the application
of social darwinism. At best, you could say that evolution is indifferent and selfish - and even selfishness has been mitigated within highly social
animals like us. Such a philosophy also fails to accommodate the fact that evolution created social animals capable of altruistic behavior.
i'm not quite understanding how the op relates the content to the title?
but on another note i started a thread the other day about evolution being a process of thought and a direct result of learning - not life. and as
reason brings order out of chaos, the only answer to our design is creation.
life adapts to survive it does not evolve....
life did not evolve. if it did then u should be able to take dead flesh, which obviously has all the vital components to create, or evlove into, new
living, thriving tissue. but it does not nor cannot happen ... on any level.
any supported research into the subject only points out what suits the possibility, but does not prove it actually. if there has ever been any solid
proof of evolution, why is it still a theory 150 years later?
I like your attempt to draw moral laws from physical laws. This is a very Hindu way of thinking. Hindu thinking begins with the question about
eternal law called "Rita" or "Dharma", based on the observation of the orderedness and regularity observable in the universe. All of these
various laws in the universe are broadly classified in Hindu philosophy as the law of cause and effect(law of karma) But this is not limited to just
physical causes and effects, but also to mental causes and effects. The investigation into cause and effect in Hindu philosophy, ultimately results in
declaring primacy of mind over matter. Material effects are only seen as secondary effects, while mental effects are primary. Thus the ultimate causes
of the universe are mental, not physical and thus this leads to a moral dimension to the laws in the universe.
In other words, all laws in the universe are obeying a moral law, and thus we can derive moral teachings from observing physical laws in the universe,
even as trivial as the laws of gravity etc A moralist deduction from the law of gravity could be that all objects require a bigger centre to orbit,
socially this could mean a student always requires a teacher or a group always requires a leader. From observing the laws of the dynamics of energy in
the world, a moralist deduction could be just as energy flows effortlessly to where it is needed, likewise resources should flow to where they are
needed in society effortlessly. Ironically, money is called "currency" which means "to flow" As soon we start impeding that flow because of
amassing wealth in one place, it results in other places getting less of it.
I really like the Hindu philosophy of how we can directly learn and apply principles learned from nature. It results in a world that is harmony with
nature. On the other hand, man-made systems that go against the principles of nature, results in disharmony. Such as mass-production of goods and
mass-exploitation of nature.
i haven't researched hindu philosophy, but i philosophize in my spare time and agree with much of what you said. learning from nature is a good
source, but ultimately the idea is to learn through association; if something works one way, the same method can be applied throughout other systems
as well...and as it can be applied to more systems it becomes a universal truth.
having said that, and in light of what you said, as man attempts to create a new world, he sepparates it from its purpose and thus strips it of any
true value, ultimately creating world full of empty lies simply because of a loss of truth.
I'm only going to say this once. The word "theory" has several different meanings. Theory, as it applies to science, has a different definition
from the word theory when used contexts of colloquial speech. When you ask "Why is evolution still a theory", what it actually sounds like to
everyone else who learned the difference in primary school is somewhat akin to confusing a knot tied in a rope for a knot as a unit of speed. So you
might as well suggest that shipping cargo overseas is inefficient because they have to pull the boat along the water by grabbing knots tied in a rope
stretched across the ocean.
I'm sure you've probably been told the difference before. If not, then take the opportunity to correct your misconception now. It's NOT a hard
concept, and may have just been something you missed or glossed over. If you have been corrected on this matter before - then you have no excuse for
purposefully and consciously misrepresenting the use of the word. Plug your ears and shout to keep understanding out all you want... but just know
that NOBODY who knows even the basics of science is going to take you or your criticism seriously. That others may refuse to engage you, excepting in
ad homeniem attacks, is not a sign of fragility of position on their part - but rather a mockery of tired old misconceptions and misunderstandings
that are you purposely will not correct. You want to throw garbage into the discussion, then don't be surprised when get garbage thrown back out at
From the NCSE:
* Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true”. Truth in science,
however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
* Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the
hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified.
Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
* Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
* Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and
If you genuinely have questions regarding the theory of evolution stemming from honest misconceptions you wish to correct - I'll be more than happy
to help you out. But if you're going waste time attacking the same old strawmen and stroking yourself with the strong arm of deliberate self-imposed
ignorance simply because you don't like what the evidence suggests, then it's simply a waste to engage you on any level. Be that the case, then it
doesn't matter WHAT the evidence suggests - or how strong the evidence is. Because at that point, you're not looking for answers or understanding.
You could give a care less about reality. You'd only be looking to reinforce the falsehoods and misconceptions which protect your fragile favorite
Evolution is falsifiable. Are your beliefs? Do you dare honestly engage the question of why evolution hasn't been falsified yet? I hope you
will. I really do. But I don't expect you to.
The fact that evolution is taking place is not really the problem here, the probem is with the interpretations of this process of evolution which is
what is problematic. The usual theory is that evolution takes place over a series of random mutations, but the fact this process is random is
purely theoretical and not tested. It also falls down when you look at physiological traits that cannot be logically explained by this
The other problem with the theory of evolution is how it can tell us with certitude what happend in the beginning of life, from which species
we have evolved from(chimps) when it cannot in fact test those conclusions. It is especially humerous when they can tell us with certitude what the
dinosaurs looked like, what were their mating rituals, what they did tens of millions of years ago.
This is what makes a particular theory of evolution very difficult to accept. Sure, maybe they are right we have evolved from chimps, or maybe they
are wrong. How do you test their conclusions? They are in fact unfalsifiable.
The usual theory is that evolution takes place over a series of random mutations, but the fact this process is random is purely theoretical and not
Facts are verifiable observations, and it has been observed for mutations to cause both occasionally beneficial as well as often deleterious effects
within the current environment the population of creatures live. However, the vast majority of these mutations are benign - having no effect on
survival of the organism. And while there has been no direct evidence to suggest some underlying intrinsic pattern or reason behind the locations of
these mutations - some biological processes have flaws and weaknesses which repeat common mutations. For instance, one of these recurring errors is
the improper division (meiosis) of haploid gametes causing an extra X or Y chromosome to be present in the sperm or egg. If that gamete cell
containing the extra X or Y chromosome is the one which fertilizes the egg, the zygote will either terminate it's growth (miscarriage) or it will
cause a condition known as Down Syndrome.
Mutation in general, comes from varying sources - which is where an influential part of the "randomness" comes in. They can be caused by
environmental factors such as pollutants, cosmic rays, background radiation, retro-viral infection, malnutrition, etc. In most cells (somatic), this
isn't going to matter much - because most of your cells aren't passed on to the next generation. Only your gametes (reproductive) are. So not only
do you have the errors in replication which can occur at random points between base pairs depending on when the mutation occurred in the replication
process - it has to occur in a specific group of specialized cells. This is why the aforementioned Down Syndrome chromosomal addition during meiosis
is most often passed on by the father - because males continually produce more sperm throughout their lives, while females are born with a set number
of eggs which do not regenerate.
And this isn't even getting into the issue of frame-shift mutations, because DNA is read in groups of three (tri-nucleotide sequences) within a
reading frame that codes a protein. If a mutation occurs at the beginning of a reading frame, it will alter the nucleotide sequence throughout the
rest of the frame dramatically - which can result in the production of an entirely new type of protein. However.. if the mutation occurs at the end of
the reading frame, the sequence will alter very little, which has a greater chance of only modifying the protein or leaving it functionally
And while the mutation rates are random and differ per individual, we can keep databases on how many and with what regularity these mutations occur
within a population. They form predicable average trends when you scale up.
But the overall important thing to remember is that while mutation is random (by observation, and not TOTALLY random - as it does obey the laws of
chemistry), natural selection is not. It is highly deterministic. Also remember that evolution only occurs in populations, not individuals, because
the co-requirement to selection is descent with modification.
(BTW: Random mutation is really more a tenet of genetics than it is Evolution, since evolution only requires offspring be modified from their parents
checked against selection. Strictly speaking, evolution doesn't overtly stipulate how that modification must take place. We just know that it's
mutations within the genome because we've identified the mechanism by which that modification occurs.)
It also falls down when you look at physiological traits that cannot be logically explained by this theory.
The other problem with the theory of evolution is how it can tell us with certitude what happend in the beginning of life
That's inapplicable. Abiogenesis is the field of science you want to criticize there. It doesn't matter how the process started - be it RNAworld,
panspermia, or special creation. Evolution itself still occurs. Would you deny the existence of a California Wildfire simply because the means by how
the fire was set was as of yet undetermined? Whether it be a deliberate and willful act of arson or sparked by natural causes like lightning. What
bearing would that have on the current state of the inferno. Of course we do investigate and try to determine cause... but in the mean time, the
firefighters are still in the field dealing with it.
It is especially humerous when they can tell us with certitude what the dinosaurs looked like
Who tells you with certitude? Science doesn't. Degrees of confidence which may be interpreted as certitude, perhaps, but science doesn't know - and
can't know - absolutely. We can only rely on the strength of the evidence we have. Now, it's strong enough to the point where I doubt you're going
to find a fact that forces us to completely re-arrange the Tyrannosaur skeleton. But you can still find debate over whether or not Tyrannosaur had dry
pebbly textured skin or whether it was covered in protofeathers. There's no direct evidence of Rex having feathers, nor do fossil impressions of
it's skin that we do have indicate such being the case. However, they have been found on smaller Tyrannosauroidea ancestors of Rex - notably the
May I ask where you get your information on Dinosaurs?
what were their mating rituals, what they did tens of millions of years ago.
If you're referring to television specials such as Walking with Dinosaurs, please keep in mind that they're more or less telling you an informative
narrative. It gets difficult to determine what we know about Dinosaurs & their behavior and with what level of probably we're confident in each
individual assertion based on the evidence when you're trying to create a television program that's goal is to entertain as well. You know how you
see those Hollywood movies or network specials that are "Based on True Events", yet can deviate substantially from what did occur. Same thing
Real science doesn't translate well into broadcast schedules, program pacing, target demographics, competition for airtime slots, commercial breaks,
etc. I would suggest that television and movies are not a place to get information on Science. Besides, they're aiming for the lowest common
denominator as a means of increasing viewership. There's not enough time to give a primer on the finer points of the comparative morphology used to
establish relation between bone fragments of incomplete fossil skeletons. Especially when Comedy Central is only a few channels away.
Sure, maybe they are right we have evolved from chimps
Oi? No. Nobody says we are descended from Chimps... except those who don't understand what they're talking about. We are not descended from any
modern species. We are merely two distinct branches of the Great Ape family known as Hominidae, and descended from a common Hominoidea (Ape)
How do you test their conclusions? They are in fact unfalsifiable.
Who's conclusions? If you're referring to whoever you received your information from, and provided you are relaying it accurately, then perhaps
not... but it's also pointless because they'd be alarmingly and absurdly wrong in their assertions. Perhaps the reason you cannot find grounds for
falsification, is because you have either been misinformed or have misinformed yourself into thinking you have to falsify a proposition that no
credible scientist proposes. If you think the position of science in these matters is worth criticizing, then I'd suggest it's also worthwhile to do
yourself a favor and get a correct analysis about what the science suggests and (more importantly) WHY it suggests it.
This may mean a LOT of footwork and research on your end, as you're also going to have to gain a familiarization and conceptual understanding of the
methodological tools and that are used in science - specifically biology since Evolution has proven so versatile in that field that it's become the
unifying theory of Biology. How can you argue that evolution does not form a twin nested hierarchy if you don't know what it is?
You don't have to go back to collage or spend years studying it. All the knowledge necessary for a solid functional understanding of evolution is
already freely available to you. You just have to take the time to honestly engage it.
What you think you know about science... heh... you'd be amazed at what you don't know. It's not hidden or sequestered away... just underutilized
and neglected by most. But if man, if you want to talk about going down some rabbit holes and expanding your mind... there are level of concordant
(cross conformational) data MILES thick for you traverse. Despite the specialization and fragmentation of scientific fields, they are not
compartmentalized - because reality exists as a whole. While our understanding of that reality is woefully incomplete, I have no doubt you will be
completely blown away by the sheer scale what we do know within the limits that evidence allows.
Originally posted by notsympl
i've always interpretted it as our souls were made in the form of the source, not our bodies
When you create a child, it's physical body, not it's soul, is created in the likeness and image of it's parents. We were physically created in the
likeness and image of the beings that came to this world.
Originally posted by notsympl
i highly doubt any "supreme being" would walk to get from point a to point b.
I'm not sure what you mean by "walking from point a to point b". The beings that came to this world ascended and descended the heavens in their
fiery chariots and pillars. Just as we ascend and descend the heavens in our fiery chariots and pillars called space shuttles and rockets.
Although our propulsion methods would be very primitive compared to theirs, it's still the same concept and effect.
Wow, that was a very long post of preaching some science at me. Albeit in a very patronzing way, perhaps for that reason I am not taking your post all
that seriously and respectfully. In the future, if you expect more engaged discussion from me on your points, please try to show some respect and
consideration for anothers views. Cheers.
The fact that the mutations are random is not observable, sorry to burst your bubble there. The fact that mutations are taking place is as much
as you can state on observation, not that they are random. The causes and mechanisms of something cannot be observed, they have to be inferred. Some
examples of physiological traits that could not have logically evolved by chance we look at in college believe it or not, such as the lining of the
stomach which is able to prevent the acids inside the stomach from burning through. Other examples include special species of bees that fart mini
explosions - yes, fart out explosions. In both cases, these features could not have evolved by random chance as accidents would mean extinction and
both require fine-tuning of chemicals in the body. If you are now going to claim that evolution can fine tune chemicals as well, then sure maybe it
can, but how do you test that claim?
The stomach lining example merely illustrates the interconnectedness of the various parts of the body. The body consists of many organs working in
tandem with one another to make the entire unit function. Even a simple process like breathing requires the cooperation of the entire body-unit.
Random chance evolution cannot explain this systematic functioning at all. However, intelligent evoution can.
Nor can this theory of evolution explain rapid evolution such that is witnessed when a catapillar metamorphisizes into a butterfly, or a tree is
produced from a seed.
In logic nothing takes place randomly, every effect has a cause. The mutations that take place thus too will have causes. This is where science which
you are treating like some bible(lol) ends and philosophy begins. Science can only tell you about what is observable not what is unobservable so it
cannot tell you anything about the ultimate causes of why anything happens.
Fantastic post, Lasheic. Lucid, to the point and--under the circumstances--just what the doctor ordered. However, and speaking from prior experience
with our indigo friend, I strongly recommend not engaging him further. I certainly do not intend to.
* * *
Phlynx, the basic law of evolution is simply: take what lies to hand and make the most of it. Use it till it breaks. In other words, evolution
is pragmatic and short-term in its operations and no moral lessons can be drawn from it--any more than they can be drawn from the fact that massive
bodies attract one another or that energy flows down potential gradients instead of up them. Besides, there's no need to apply the lessons of
evolution to life because evolution itself does that for us anyway.
So you're an evolutionist? Good, so am I. Know evolution for what it is: a law of nature, known as natural selection, in action. And I know it for
what it is not: not a religion, not a rule of conduct, not a social paradigm or a way of life. I've spent many fascinating years learning about it
and marvelling at its wonders, but I am keenly aware of the dangers of romanticizing it. Don't do that. Apologies for the sermon.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.