| Author | Message | ||
     Will Fischer |
I hope everyone finds this topic worthy of discussion... A common view of conservative preachers is that evolution has ruined society because it teaches us that we are animals. "Since kids are told that they are decsended from animals, they act like animals," is a typical statement. I don't believe this is true, but it raises an interesting question. What does evolutionary theory tell us about God, if anything? I don't just mean biological evolution... we could also talk about evolutionary ideas in astronomy, geology, or any branch of knowledge. | ||
| James Blodgett |
Evolution is a method of explanation that is very successful in biology. The theological implications are that evolution removes the necessity for a designer when explaining biological teleology. Teleology is the obvious purpose in things like hands, eyes, legs, etc. Eyes are for seeing. How did it happen that organisms have instruments for seeing? One explanation is that God designed organisms that way. Before Darwin, this could be used as a proof of God's existence. Evolution provides an alternate, and generally quite successful, explanation. I like to think that God may have designed a universe that could evolve, but even if God did design us to the last detail, the existence of an alternate explanation removes this as a proof. Evolution is successful even at the level of the origin of life. To explore some of this, do a search on "RNA world." I may like to think that God designed a universe that could evolve, but there is an alternate explanation there also. Look up "anthropic principle." The alternate explanation is the various multiple-world theories in quantum physics and elsewhere. Evolution as an explanation requires an evolving system that can survive and reproduce. I am not clear how such ideas can apply to astronomy or geology. Careful thought about the world does not always produce motivating results. For some, this is an argument for not thinking. I am not comfortable with that argument. I prefer a philosophy and a religion that makes good use of our greatest gift, our minds. | ||
| Eric Whitehair |
And what does this say about how we think of animals? As a former wildlife rehabilitator, zookeeper and plymouth Brethern fundie- I'd have to say that I've seen some animal behaviors that I think would be a good lesson in morality for most humans I've met (self included). We like to place ourselves above the rest of GOD's creation- why? Has Zoarastrian Hierarchy infultrated our religion that far? In Ecclesiasties, the preacher teaches that humans and animals return to dust after our time of toil is over. Jesus is quoted as saying that GOD cares for each sparrow. We are animals- the sooner we accept that we are part of creation and not above creation the better off we'll be. | ||
| Perry |
Understanding evolution from a teleological perspective can lead to fundamental errors of interpretation. In evolution the only thing that matters is genetic fitness i.e. reproductive success for that SPECIFIC gene. Adopting a teleological perspective misses the powerful roles of genetic drift, sexual selection, or the rider affect based on genes which tend to appear together. Successful genetic traits may not contribute ANYTHING to the strength, speed, or adaptability of a species because they may have evolved through entirely different means. A soon to be published, or perhaps already published, book by Alexander Levine, Lehigh University makes this point with stunning clarity. I would try to reproduce the arguments here, but Alex would never forgive me! | ||
| James Blodgett |
Of course evolution is accompanied by secondary effects like genetic drift and sexual selection. Perhaps teleology is not the best precise way to understand it, depending on your definition of teleology. This does not matter for the theological point I was making. Any reasonable understanding of evolution, with or without genetic drift, sexual selection, mass extinctions, etc., provides an alternate hypothesis as to why we have "apparently designed" things like hands. "Apparently designed" is most of what I meant by teleology. I did not mean that evolution is directed toward a specific or a conscious goal. If there are many paths, evolution finds a workable one. Sometimes it finds several workable paths, and pits them against each other. Sometimes the contest is not really "fair." Evolution is a search routine, a less than optimal, but very robust, search routine. A version of evolution even works to find mathematical formulas on a computer. Look up "genetic algorithms." I like Eric Whitehair's point about animals. | ||
| Perry |
That is PRECISELY the danger of teleology in evolution! There is no path--except in hindsight. Thre is no purpose except one which we attribute to the course of evolution in retrospect. The argument against teleology in evolution is an argument against thinking of it as a 'search routine' or algorithm. Instead it is a process staggering along from generation to generation out of which all biological characteristics are wholly UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. The gene could not care less whether the hand is functional or vestigial. If the individual gene reproduces it has succeded. End of story. | ||
| James Blodgett |
Are you saying human hands happened by random wandering? As a statistician, or a fundamentalist, will tell you, the odds of that are infinitesimal. Evolution produces things that look like they were designed. Any understanding of evolution that loses that insight is throwing the baby out with the bath water. I agree that the "looks like they were designed" factor is ex- post-facto. Yes, organisms were not really designed. Yes, you could call them "unintended consequences." They could have come out quite differently. But they could not come out so differently that they do not work. Evolution produces (you would not like the word "finds") things that work. If they do not work, the organism does not reproduce. If the organism does not reproduce, the single gene on which you like to focus does not reproduce either. (To be forceful, I have left out a bunch of caveats--survival and reproduction work with differential rates, not only with yes or no, successful organisms have to work and reproduce as a totality, things like hands don't necessarily have to work, etc. These don't matter, unless you want to pick pedantic points.) Your understand is precisely the danger of your point of view. Sounds to me like throwing out Darwin and bringing in the barbarians. | ||
| James Blodgett |
A lot of this comes from functionalism. Functionalism is a strategy for explanation which works well with biological systems. Functionalism explains biological things in terms of their function. If a biologist finds some structure in a cell, it is a productive question to ask "what is the function of this structure?" It is a productive question because biological systems work. In order to work, we can expect that their parts will fit together into a working system. We can usually analyze the parts in terms of their functions for the system. There is seeming teleology in this, but a good biologist understands the inverse logic of that teleology. We can expect that biological systems work, because evolution (or God) assures that they work-- in some form or other. I agree that consequences are unintended and that there is randomness in the outcome of exactly how they work--but they have to survive and reproduce or they do not work from an evolutionary point of view. I am concerned about your recent reply because you do not seem to be thinking about what I am saying. | ||
| Perry |
I have thought about your responses at length and am basing my comments on the work of William Sewell and James Coleman, contemporary theorists who critique teleological thinking at great length. Functionalism is one of their favorite targets. Sewell and Coleman would argue that functionalism may be a useful heuristic, but it is fundamentally flawed on a philosophical level. You cannot ever assume that something evolved 'for a purpose' unless there is a demonstrable mechanism compelling that end. They argue that the process can be analyzed, but if you assume a purpose you obviate the role of process. **I am thinking of the seminal work--James Coleman 1990. The Foundation of Social Theory and Sewell's award winning paper on Teleology and Reasoning. I don't know the final title or publication date I read it in pre-publication form. | ||
| James Blodgett |
I appreciate your thinking carefully. I have not read those books. Perhaps I will, although I have little time. You and they are right if you are cautioning against inappropriately attributing a purpose to evolution. I tried to be careful not to do that. Coleman, a sociologist, has reason for expressing caution with functionalism. I am not impressed with the uses some sociologists make of functionalism, especially latent functionalism. For functionalism to work as an explanation, you need a mechanism such as evolution. For evolution to work, you need an evolving organism. Societies are somewhat like organisms, but if they evolve by means of survival that should take millennia. (Evolution might work for small social groups such as gangs or firms.) Social evolution seems implausible as a an explanation for latent functions of elements of social structure when measured against an alternate hypothesis, that at some level the functions are not latent. In other words, if social structure has a function, it seems more likely that someone understood that function and chose that social structure, than that the function was unknown to all but exists because it contributes to survival of the society. I think the latent function of latent functionalism is to make sociologist sound as if they know something. You don't get credit for analyzing manifest functions, since they are things that everyone knows. | ||
| James C. McCloud (highlander) |
What is Theology? This is not a topic you can discuss. If I wish to have a discussion with you about a Feline, I can point to a furry quadeped with retractable claws, and certain other aspects, and be sure you and I are talking about the same thing. Theology=talk about God. What is God? Have you seen him/her? What does he/she look like? Does he/she have organs of reprodution or excretment? If so, why? Does he/she have a navel? Again, why? (If you think I might be poking fun at the notion that we are created in God's image, you'd be right. She/he would not look as ineffienct as we do. But all that aside... as nobody can say what god is, how can you have a conversation about Him/Her? Without a point to begin, you have nothing. When you can agree on the base meaning of the word God, as with the word Cat... then you can have a discussion on Theology. | ||
| James Swan |
Just got here and read through the posts. There has been a lot of discussion of teleology in evolution in relation to Intelligent Design. The basic issue in science is that assumptions are not made without good reason, Occam's Razor. Science can say nothing about God, creation, or purpose. It cannot 'prove' that there is no purpose in evolution, nor that there is. The issue is that purpose need not be assumed in order to explain. Random mutation and selection are sufficient to explain what happens -- both involving random elements, but selection being largely deterministic. Evolution works by kludge: taking over structures that served one function (as we interpret 'function' onto them) when they work for another function and developing them for the new function. My favorite is still Gould's panda's thumb: not a true digit but a bonespur that improved the panda's ability to grasp bamboo. So does teleology, purpose, or design have any role in evolution? Yes -- when considering humans and how their activities further shaped their own development and that of other species. Why only humans? Because: we have surviving evidence about their activities, and we have insight into how and why they design and behave. Maybe someday we'll have evidence of how, for example, whale songs influenced the evolution of whales and other sea creatures; but for now, the focus for evolutionary teleology is on humans. | ||
| Richard Gay (willbonds) |
This message is a scientific test of the evolution of my user profile. | ||
| Tracy Hartford (letah) Member Username: letah Post Number: 30 Registered: 4-2001 |
I too have just read through, and I think in regards to teleology, etc., it is important to note that Darwin's theory was not just about evolution, but was evolution through natural selection. Yes, genes mutate, and are sexually selected. But it was the process of natural selection that caused some genes to remain in the gene pool, while others bit the dust, so to speak. "There is no path--except in hindsight. Thre is no purpose except one which we attribute to the course of evolution in retrospect. The argument against teleology in evolution is an argument against thinking of it as a 'search routine' or algorithm. Instead it is a process staggering along from generation to generation out of which all biological characteristics are wholly UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES." In other words, there was nothing causing the photosensitivity to occur in primitive eyes. It was randomly occurring. But it gave a competitive edge to those who had it, giving them more ability to mate, and pass it on. It can be seen how our eyes evolved now, but our eyes (or an eagles, etc.) were not the goal. ------ "For evolution to work, you need an evolving organism. Societies are somewhat like organisms, but if they evolve by means of survival that should take millennia. (Evolution might work for small social groups such as gangs or firms.) Social evolution seems implausible as a an explanation for latent functions of elements of social structure when measured against an alternate hypothesis, that at some level the functions are not latent. In other words, if social structure has a function, it seems more likely that someone understood that function and chose that social structure, than that the function was unknown to all but exists because it contributes to survival of the society." I'm not sure what latent functionalism is, but I have often thought that as far as humans are concerned, natural selection is being confounded by our medical technology. What used to kill us doesn't anymore (in a few countries), so the genes are not being eliminated. Or we die because our bodies evolved with different nutritional requirements than the overabundance that is now available (in a few countries), but not in time to avoid passing on the genes to our children. So medical and nutritional provisions could be seen as a societal evolution, and one that has evolved differently in different nations. However, I agree that it was probably intentionally selected in order to help that society survive. ------ "Evolution as an explanation requires an evolving system that can survive and reproduce. I am not clear how such ideas can apply to astronomy or geology." When I first started to question fundamentalist Christianity, it was because I took a Geology course in my Freshman year of college. I had my first exposure to the most cursory explanation of the Big Bang theory, and learned about all other sorts of Geological phenomena. I don't think I would call it evolution, exactly, but there are definately changes in geology over time. Maybe erotion is a better word, but that doesn't really apply to all the changes, such as at converging plate boundaries. In addition, geology and palentology often overlap, because as you dig down, fossilized organisms tend to become less complex. Also, because natural selection pressures are usually originate from the environmental conditions, inspecting the geological timeline provides additional data for hindsight. I don't really know anything about astronomy, other than the most vague concepts. But I've heard about the Evolution of Thought, as a liberal art field. I don't have formal training in it, but I've experienced it. Every time I learn something that contradicts something else I believe, I experience a fight for survival between the conflicting ideas. Sometimes this is swift, and other times it is an incredibly protracted process of deliberation and vascillation. Seeing as humans are social creatures, it makes sense to me that this takes place on societal proportions. I took an English literature course, and the class was organized according to "periods" that coincided with the changes in societal beliefs, and that were sometimes instigated by specific events. Not exactly biological evolution, but interestingly parallel. | ||
| Firstname Lastname New member Username: tfr666 Post Number: 1 Registered: 8-2005 |
The Roman Catholic Church has embraced evolution. According to Roman Catholic theology, God is the cause of all causes, and so R.C. teaching finds no problem with evolution. Evolution is biological causality so to speak. Simply put, God created evolution, and evolution produced life-forms. Contrast this view with the Xian fundamentalist view on the subject. The fundamentalist takes the bible not as parable, myth, and metaphor, but literally, and so cannot make evolution jibe with the notion that God "breathed life" into a lump of mud called Adam. The fundamentalist calls the notion that we are "descended from apes" atheistic and ungodly, and claims further that the teaching of this theory will undermine our pride in Humanity itself and erode moral virtue: if you teach that we're animals we'll be no better than the animals! Here, ironically, the fundamentalist who wishes to teach Creationism lacks true respect for Creation and the Cosmos, the potential for stardust to produce Intelligent Life. The theory of evolution is really quite beautiful, a modern analog to the music of the spheres. | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 115 Registered: 5-2005 |
Will Fischer You do know there are two types of evolution (micro and macro.) Most of Darwin's theories where drawn by observing micro evolution, while macro evolution is inconclusive. And I’m afraid this is how it’s going to stay for the duration of humanity. There always will be a conflict between creation and evolution. For one, they go in opposite direction and they will never meet, some religions think otherwise. You see, creation starts with everything and goes forward, while evolution starts with what we have now and works back to the beginning. Science claims, start of life and evolution are both of random choice without a purpose and all the creatures including humans, have evolved from a handful of common ancestry. Hard to believe already, eeh! Creation believes god created the universe and everything within six days. This is hard to believe as well! What I think draws people to creation is, that creation gives a reason why we are here and we are given a purpose for our existence, rather then random choice offered by science. ARE WE ANIMALS? By either conclusion, fact by science or faith by creation, WE ARE NOT ANIMALS we and animals might have shared a common ancestry once upon a time. Now we are above animals in a class of our own. | ||
| Firstname Lastname New member Username: tfr666 Post Number: 2 Registered: 8-2005 |
t's possible to speak of Creation as "everything" that has ever existed or will ever exist, and it's possible to speak of Creation as the beginning -- the moment, so to speak, when the universe came into existence. When I say "Creation" (as distinct from Creationism) I am referring to the universe, to all of the necessary ingredients for everthing that exists or will ever exist: energy, matter, and causality, and to the various forms all of those ingredients have taken at any given moment in Time. I don't know any scientists who get into the discussion of "purpose". Science is silent on the issue of meaning and purpose. When you say that it's hard to believe that God created the universe in six days, what do you mean by "day". A day is the time it takes for the earth to make a complete revolution on its axis. Was there a "day" before the earth existed? Michael Ray wrote: You see, creation starts with everything and goes forward, while evolution starts with what we have now and works back to the beginning. Science claims, start of life and evolution are both of random choice without a purpose and all the creatures including humans, have evolved from a handful of common ancestry. | ||
| Ray Beckwith Member Username: ray Post Number: 25 Registered: 9-2004 |
Excellent topic Will. I would like to chime in on this issue, it being one of my favorites. At the risk of being accused of playing semantic games ('cause no one ever plays with semantics to make a point...right), I would say that it all depends on what you mean by "Animals". If you mean breathing oxygen, ingesting food and converting it to energy, reproducing sexually and having the ability to move under your own power then clearly we are animals. From a biological standpoint it's obvious. As Will says; "'Since kids are told that they are descended from animals, they act like animals,' is a typical statement." What they are really saying with this statement is that the only thing keeping humans from rutting in the street and killing each other indiscriminately is the knowledge that we were created by God "In His Image." and as such, should be expected to behave better. Frankly, I give humanity more credit. As to what evolutionary theory can tell us about God; the answer is nothing. It's up to theology to tell us about God; Evolutionary theory is merely science's current best estimate for how organisms have come to be. Theology can, however, accept part or all of evolutionary theory and thereby answer your question. I would pose an alternate question though: What do our individual feelings about God, evolutionary theory and science in general tell us about ourselves and our faith? Do you want to believe in a God that asks you to deny the very facts of His creation? Organisms evolve. Every day science finds more and more evidence that all of biology must come from the same beginnings (RNA). Those who continue to deny the mounting evidence are only demonstrating how weak and inflexible their faith is, that it cannot stand up to the facts of biology. As for Michael's comments:
The arrogance of this is frightening. Although I agree that humans are "in a class of our own," it is sheer arrogance to assume our class is "above" the rest of the animals. By what criteria do you consider us superior? Science is finding that we are no longer the only self aware animals. Some primates and dolphins have apparently demonstrated that they recognize themselves in a mirror and can tell the different between their reflection and a photograph. Koko the gorilla has demonstrated that at least one other species is capable of symbolic communication and abstract thought. Socially, honeybees and ants are far superior to humans; no slackers, murderers, thieves or politicians. Chimpanzees and even otters are tool users. ...Stingray | ||
| Beelzebub Senior Member  Username: beelzebubPost Number: 116 Registered: 7-2005 |
Hidey ho everybody! Are human beings "above animals in a class of our own"? Even from an old-fashioned theological viewpoint, this isn't so. We are different from animals in that we are both vastly superior to them and vastly more degraded than they are, at the same time. Man is half-angel and half-devil, with none of the innocence of the animal. We have the capacity to rise above, but we are indeed fallen creatures. According to old-fashioned, pre-evolutionary theology. ciao! Beelzy "And we'll dance through our isolation Seeking solace in the wisdom we bestow" - DCD | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 117 Registered: 5-2005 |
Firstname Lastname I don’t believe there is any scientist that would use purpose either. I explained it in the way it makes sense to me. Is it scientifically correct.? NO! is it philosophically correct? It can be, providing the reader believes nothing can exist without a reason or purpose. Its bit like E=mc2. All matter and non matter are mathematical, therefore there must be a rational answer. I’m glad that somehow you have found arrogance in my reply. If a fault cold not be found then there would be no reason to further the debate. Unfortunately all other earthly creatures with compactly of rational thought are INCOMLETE to perform task on the same level or even close to the same level humans can. First, they will have to rely on evolution to bring them to this level, providing we have not destroyed the environment and wiped out the species. Next, all life is biologically different and DNA code sees that it stays that way. I bet the $5 in my pocket right now we are not animals and above all other life Beelzebab I have hard trouble using my little brain to make sense of what you are saying, can you please elaborate. Thanks | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 118 Registered: 5-2005 |
Firstname Lastname Sorry for keeping this post separate, there is a reason for it. A DAY ACORRDING TO THE BIBLE is a 24 hour period. Although the sun and the moon is not created until the fourth day. There is nothing to suggests the three days prior to this were any longer. If they were, then god would have named them differently. A day is a day by biblical standard. I disagree with any theology used by Mormons or Jehovah witness. They are liars and are using this propaganda to lure people in with false analogies. ITS CALLED BURNING THE CANDLE ON BOTH ENDS! | ||
| Beelzebub Senior Member Username: beelzebubPost Number: 117 Registered: 7-2005 |
Hi Mikey! Very simply: as human beings, we have the capacity for great good, far greater than any other 'animal'. But we also have the capacity for great evil, far greater than any other 'animal'. We are both better and worse at the same time, due to our nature as fallen creatures. We are not 'above' them, but rather both above them and below them at the same time. ciao! Beelzy "And we'll dance through our isolation Seeking solace in the wisdom we bestow" - DCD | ||
| Firstname Lastname New member Username: tfr666 Post Number: 3 Registered: 8-2005 |
It was not I who "found arrogance" in your statment, Michael, that "we are not animals". That was Ray Beckwith. But I think it's irrelevant what we call ourselves, animals or not animals, irrelevant *what* you think or *what* I think. My point is much broader: we're composed of stardust, and it's a wonder, a marvel that stardust combined to produce Life and Thought. The big deal is *that* we exist and *that* we think! Now, was stardust created from nothing? Who knows? The scientists don't. The theologians don't. Scientists start *at* the "big bang" ; they can't (and don't) talk, not scientifically anyways, about "pre-bang". Me, I'm a dolphin typing with my snout and fins. We dolphins liked DOS much better than we like Windows(tm) because it's almost impossible for us to use a %&%* mouse. The people at Microsoft are a bunch of anthropocentric a%%holes. It was a dolphin who invented the trackball, BTW. | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 119 Registered: 5-2005 |
Firstname Lastname I have a slight problem with who wrote what. Hehe! I’ve debating this subject for years and the reason we can keep on debate this subject is this uncertainty. No doubt science can link Dinosaurs with today’s birds; no doubt science holds a lot of knowledge, especially in medicine. But what they cannot explain is why life is dependent on other life, for survival. If I was to assume evolution is random and life is random. Then, why are we left with the perception of purpose? According to the bible earth is around six thousand years old, but we know Australian Aborigines arrived to Australia more then 40 thousand years ago. Who knows how long before that, they existed . I f we know E=mc2, then, that to me says PLAN life cannot exist without a plan. This to me also says “GOD,”. In what form you might like to view this god is up to you. God the man god the spirit god the Mathematics. I believe god is mathematics, things can only exist if there is a mathematical possible. I also believe that quantum mathematics holds the answer to the puzzle. | ||
| robert morgan New member Username: olddog Post Number: 9 Registered: 7-2005 |
Perhaps both are incorrect and for the same reason? Creationists fail to take into account the authors of the books of the Bible. They were MEN with all the supersistitions of their time, in short they lacked the background to fully understand what they were seeing. No one lived the entire peorid covered in the bible nor were there records kept. "to err is human". and man was never ment to know it all or even understand the "will of God". THE BIBLE IS; a code of morality told in storey book fashion. From its pages is REVEALED the basic principals of what, why and how we should interact with one another. In this aspect it is "DEVINELY INSPIRED" AND CONTAINS THE WISDOM OF MAN'S ENTIRE HERITAGE! ACT TOWARDS OTHERS AS HALF THE STORIES TEACH AND BE SAINTLY, OBEY ALL AND BE DEVINE. Argue not over the number of Angles that might sit on the head of a pin, pay heed to the true leasons in each incident for there are many in each storey. SCIENCE TOO IS MISTAKEN for they have "rushed to judgement" on evolution. Darwin was a Man as well and had his own superstitions, AND THE PROOF IS IN THE WORD GOD SPELLED BACKWARDS. Yes Dog is the answer and the proof, Charles Darwin believed the Dog to be several hundred thousand years evolved from the wolf and inter mixed with several other canines. This was Darwin's explanation of the extreme diversity of DOG. Modern DNA science shows Dog and Wolf diverged about 12,000 years ago and Dogs all came from the same wolf pack and there is no other canine species in their genome. Darwin's theory requires long peroids for natural selection to creat the smallest of diversity. Science has no answer to where DOG in all it's diversity came from. Only by reversing the name of mans best friend does an explanation present it's self. The DNA facts I cite here are as recent as the first of this year. In very recent times Man has bred the dog, yet this is a recent thing less than two thousand years, and you can breed camels for eternity and not get a Zebra. In speculation I propose an explanation; DOG is GOD's greatest gift and greatest leason in one, to teach Man Loyality, Devtion and Love. The Bible, the ten commandments and the great devotion of DOG all are lessons for Man from GOD. I am not a religious man, having broken some of the 10 Comandments, ignored for a lifetime the moral leassons of the Bible and not appreciated the leason from DOG. Perhaps I shall be given a great gift and be there with Deborah and Berack at the foot of the mountain on the plane of ARMAGEDDON, where,God willing, may I be prifeledged to send to HELL some of the minions of Evil, SS,GESTAPO,KKK and the most evil of all ATF scum of human kind one and all. | ||
| Beelzebub Senior Member Username: beelzebubPost Number: 118 Registered: 7-2005 |
Hi Robert Morgan! You're right, the Dog is not the product of natural selection, but rather of human selection. It's called breeding and, contrary to what you've read, we've been doing it to the Dog for at least 10,000 years. And it's still evolution. ciao! Beelzy "And we'll dance through our isolation Seeking solace in the wisdom we bestow" - DCD | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 120 Registered: 5-2005 |
Beelzebub Evolution is only by natural means and not by human intervention. The dog can only be backdated to two different species, this does not make reason reasonable to suspect dogs have derived in so many different species. Science believes dogs evolved from wolves 130,00 years ago, and are we to say wolves have not existed since? | ||
| Beelzebub Senior Member Username: beelzebubPost Number: 119 Registered: 7-2005 |
Hi Mikey! Actually, dogs are all one species. They can all interbreed. As a matter of fact, wolves and dogs (despite their different Linnaean classification) are members of the same species, because they can interbreed. And evolution is evolution, no matter whether the selection mechanism is natural or artificial. ciao! Beelzy "And we'll dance through our isolation Seeking solace in the wisdom we bestow" - DCD | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 121 Registered: 5-2005 |
nope, read about evolution | ||
| robert morgan New member Username: olddog Post Number: 10 Registered: 7-2005 |
AGAIN DOG diverged from Wolf 12,000 to 14,000 years ago~ Please "recheck newer DNA studdies. Oldest dog remains found in (where else?) Israel, puppy entombed with child holding it in it's arms. As to Human breeding, this was the Stone age, no jet delivery service no UPS, men lived and died a lifetime later within a few miles, There was NO Marco Polo for many thousands of years. Man traveled on foot or by boat and at the time worked and worked just to live, Breed dogs? Try to breed a camel to change it's size 100 times and see where Darwin was right, 100,000 years to get one hump from two. Sure in the last few hundred years say 1,000 years man has been dabbling in dog breeding. But in Darwin's theory no creature evolves to such a diverse creature in such a short time. Darwin calculated a 100.000 year span for the Sea dwelling Iguana to develope webbed feet. As to the "GREAT LEASON" I give you Napoleon's diary and a story from it. As Napoleon walked the battlefield after a great carnage and great victory, he recounts comming on a Dog in it's masters arms, both dead the Dog giving his friend a last lick. In Napoleon's words "in all my years of war, no sight disturbed me so much as this." When I say DOG is destined to teach Man great leasons of loyalty and devoution, this dog showed the MASTER OF MODERN WAR a chilling leason that tens of thousands of dead Men could not. What Man is so hardened of heart as not to be touched by the story of this last act of great love and devotion, to die for a last kiss to his dead master and friend. Learn! Heed! or. . . . The Ancient Egyptians believed Anibus the wild dog headed God weighed the good against the evil in all men's deeds of their lifetime and sent the man to Heaven or Hell. And not even the living God Pharao was exempt from this "weighing" of the soul. THINK on this and believe DOG was a gift from GOD. There is EVIL in our world and in our midst, it walks on two leggs and looks just like Man, but it is a creature from Hell, named SS/sa/GESTAPO/KKK/BATFE. By what ever name it is the enemy of Human kind, and if there is a "last great" battle, it will be against these sanctimonious SCUM that call themselve "servants of the people""to serve and protect" or such verbage. The Nazis called these SCUM "The Order Police" for they were the executioners of Millions of better people. | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 122 Registered: 5-2005 |
Recent molecular evidence shows that dogs are descended from the gray wolf, domesticated about 130,000 years ago. But if they all share a common ancestor, why do toy poodles and Great Danes seem to have little in common? Years of selective breeding by humans has resulted in the artificial "evolution" of dogs into many different types. --------------------------------------------------------------- Here is the problem…evolution is nonselective therefore science is contradicting its stance on evolution. which I would doubt any of this information on dogs has come from scientific avelutation. | ||
| Beelzebub Senior Member Username: beelzebubPost Number: 120 Registered: 7-2005 |
Hi Bob! Anyone who's ever bred animals knows you can breed stable characteristics in just a couple of generations. Doesn't take hundreds of years. Man was breeding animals long before science cam along to explain why it worked. ciao! Beelzy "And we'll dance through our isolation Seeking solace in the wisdom we bestow" - DCD | ||
| Beelzebub Senior Member Username: beelzebubPost Number: 121 Registered: 7-2005 |
Hi Mikey! I have read about it. Quite a bit about it, in fact. And, whether the selection method is natural or artificial, evolution is evolution. Selection of characteristics leads to speciation. ciao! Beelzy "And we'll dance through our isolation Seeking solace in the wisdom we bestow" - DCD | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 123 Registered: 5-2005 |
Article copied by me the largest natural population of organisms that can potentially interbreed to produce fertile offspring. It is commonly assumed that members of one species are reproductively isolated from members of all other species (i.e., they cannot mate with them to produce fertile offspring). However, we must be cautious in defining species with this criterion because members of very closely related species can sometimes produce offspring together, and a small fraction of those may be fertile to some degree. This is the case with mules, which are the product of mating between horses and donkeys. About one out of 10,000 mules is fertile. This suggests that some species differences are a matter of degree. | ||
| Beelzebub Senior Member Username: beelzebubPost Number: 123 Registered: 7-2005 |
Hi Mikey! Yup! There you go: evidence for the evolution of species over time. Thanks! ciao! Beelzy "And we'll dance through our isolation Seeking solace in the wisdom we bestow" - DCD | ||
| robert morgan Junior Member Username: olddog Post Number: 11 Registered: 7-2005 |
For NEWEST age of Dog's divergence from Wolf, Google National Geographic article "wolf to woof" 12,000 to 14,000 years. FAR TOO SHORT A TIME FOR DARWIN'S THEORY TO ACCOUNT FOR. Darwin set the time at well over a 100,000 years to make DOG fit into his theory and also added the false multiple genetic inputs from other Canine species, all to avoid any "divine intervention" from spoiling his theory. Science, casts doubt on this theory, but if you merge the two, leaving out the "Bible is to be read exactly as it is written" and remembering the Bible we know today is NOT the Bible as it was originally written, but a many times translated and many times edited version of only a portion of the original books. DARWIN WAS RIGHT in seeing the "natural selection" of all creatures great and small. BUT HE WAS WRONG in not seeing the "Greater hand of God as the Initiator" of this. As I use the name GOD, I do not mean the narrow definition of the Western worlds God, but a "force that acts with foreknowledge and intelegance beyond our understanding". | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 124 Registered: 5-2005 |
Actually young Beelzebub you missed the point. Most of these species that are close genetically, produce offspring’s of same sex. In the case of mule, all mules are females. Hehehe! The fertile ones can only mate with either horse or donkey, the preferred partner will restore nature back to either horse or donkey. But you are on the right track with the word you used before “SPECIATION”. You hardly ever see evolutionists use this phenomena as major evidence that evolution truly exists. | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 125 Registered: 5-2005 |
robert morgan This is only to my understanding….apparently; it is believed the bible has a code by which it cannot be interpreted wrongly (referring to Torah code) also this code can be used to foretell future. From all the various religions and views, I wish somebody would find it quickly. Bible doesn’t have a problem with evolution, evolutionists have a problem with the bible and evolution. I call them men in limbo, don’t like one, cannot prove the other. Why cant we accept all as part of the truth ? How much does a person have to know about creation, when that creation could include evolution. It was not the intent of the creator to allow anybody to duplicate the creation.. that would violate the copywrite laws. ..lol…as for me, I am grateful to be here as part of evolution and creation through birth. | ||
| Beelzebub Senior Member Username: beelzebubPost Number: 124 Registered: 7-2005 |
(Young?) Actually, little Mikey, YOU missed the point. Mules as the offspring of horses and donkeys are evidence of evolution. We are watching horses and donkeys speciate in front of our eyes. Once they must have been sub-species and been able to reproduce together with fertile offspring. Now they've drifted too far apart genetically, but they can still produce sterile offspring. Sometime in the future, they will be unable to do even that. Evolution on the hoof! Ain't it grand! ciao! (Old) Beelzy "And we'll dance through our isolation Seeking solace in the wisdom we bestow" - DCD | ||
| robert morgan Junior Member Username: olddog Post Number: 12 Registered: 7-2005 |
Me again with more "DOG WISDOM" Humans try to differentiate themselves from Animals in at least one major way, our use of language spoken and written. This is really the Human way to "pass along information to our friends and offspring. Unfortunely Man learns only what he feels strongly. Fire burns, and even then the "Lesson" is soon lost unless reinforced in most persons. God in his wisdom chose a "continuing lesson model" a story book with plots so variable. A simple set of directions written in stone. and a Living example in DOG. Lesson from DOG is "Loyalty and Devoution are rewarded." The devoution and loyalty from ones dog can be seen day in and day out. Now take a "Lesson" from my lifetime (70 years). The EVIL of the Police State. I remember the goose steping black clad men on the news at the movies. (No TV) I remember the marching songs the "adoration of the crowds in these movies as the Fuhrer drove by." giving the Nazi salute. What "powerfull images of the master race on the march." Just like John Walsh on AMW the announcer gave a narration of what was going on. With minor omitions, to be sure, of the Death Camps, Gas Chambers and the EVIL of these creatures. John Walsh, the Police agrandizer the man so consumed with hatred for the killer of his son, he cannot see the EVIL he is laudaing, the "Police State in America" he is "selling" to those not old enough to remember the "Goosesteping Black clad men". The EVIL men do in the name of Government,lives on long after they pass on to Hell. Look at the EVIL in our Law enforcement, lies under oath to convict Martha Stewart, now lies to convict the men in the Lockabe Scotland bombing of Pan Am flight 103. And; the lies and more lies goes on and the EVIL liars get higher in "Government service." As to religon and morality; REMEMBER the Bible was written by men, inspired men? but men none the less. The TEN COMANDMENTS were written in stone by the hand of GOD. The Ninth commandment says in effect "you shall not testify falsely against your neighbor". If we executed ever lying Policeman we would have no one left to beat the drunks to death with nightsticks or for Tazer practice on the "Unimportant ones". The Poor, Black, downtrodden the homeless, these are the first victims of the "New Police State". Be assured, NO SENIOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, FEDERAL COURT JUDGE OR SUCH WILL EVER BE TASERED TO DEATH OR JUST TAZERED, that is for the people not the "Important ones". Mans leason on this FILTH is forgotten even before the passing of the generation that experienced it, and we have film and other recordings to remind us of "The Black Clad Men on the march who just want to protect the people." May GOD help America. | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 126 Registered: 5-2005 |
Young Beelzebub I think this is how it works……….. God created the donkey and told him: you will work tireless from sun up to sun down, carrying heavy bags on your back, you'll eat grass, you will not have intelligence and you will live 50 years. You will be an DONKEY! The donkey answered: I'll be a donkey, but living 50 years is too much, give me only 20 years. And God gave him 20 years. God created the dog and told him: You will look after the men house, you will be his best friend, you will eat whatever they give you and you will live 25 years. You will be a DOG! The dog answered: God, living 25 years is too much, give only 10. God gave him 10 years. God created the monkey and told him: You will jump from branch to branch, you will do silly things, you will be amusing and you will live 20 years. The monkey answered: God, living 20 years is too much, give me only 10 years. And God agreed. Finally, God created man, and told him: You will be Man, the only rational being on this earth, you will use your intelligence to control other animals, you will dominate the world and you will live for 20 years. The man answered: God, I'll be man, but living 20 years is not enough, why don't you give me the 30 years that the donkey refused, the 20 years that the dog did not want and the 10 years that the monkey refused. That was what God did, and since then, Man live 20 years like a man, then he enters adulthood and spends 30 years like a donkey, working and carrying the load on his back, then when his children leave home, spends 15 years like a dog, looking after the house and eating whatever is given to him, then he gets into retirement, and spends 10 years like a monkey, jumping from house to house or from children to children, doing silly things to amuse the grandchildren. | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 127 Registered: 5-2005 |
YOUNG Beelzebub As I can only offer you lame mans theories on this subject. So, I can only argue by researching other people work. Anyway in my wild journey of the internet I came across this interesting debate http://www.columbiadems.org/blog/?p=373 hope you enjoy it as much as I did.. what I was looking for I could not find. I’m on a similar theory like you, that there was a split in horse gene or donkey gene to produce either or. But I did come across something that you might find interesting. Human interference is not know as evolution by scientific theory. This is more along the line of creation as god interfered to produce life. | ||
| Beelzebub Senior Member Username: beelzebubPost Number: 125 Registered: 7-2005 |
Hi LITTLE Mikey! Nice fable! I'm sorry, but I didn't have the time to give the link a really serious look-through though. It looked interesting. Maybe I can revisit it soon. Let me just say this: evolution is not a theory postulated by Charles Darwin, evolution is an observed phenomenon recognized long before Darwin was born. But the mechanism of evolution was unknown until Darwin postulated natural selection as such. Darwin's theory is natural selection. Darwin's original model of this has since been refined into the punctuated equilibrium model, as more and more paleontological and biological evidence has indicated that evolutions proceeds in fits and starts, separated by long periods of status quo. But, evolution can still proceed by either natural or artificial means. Human intervention can push speciation. ciao! (Old) Beelzy "And we'll dance through our isolation Seeking solace in the wisdom we bestow" - DCD | ||
| Dennis.K.Ynborg Intermediate Member Username: kazik Post Number: 37 Registered: 4-2005 |
Before we take the final step into space we will never be quite litterary above any other animal, and even then i believe that we are going to take with us a great amount of different wild/domesticated lifeforms because we need them to survive, The question is what will drive/force us into leaving this planet, maybe overpopulation or enviromental degradation. The question of us standing above animalsis in my mind quite irrelevant, but i am going to take a swing and pitch in my opinion. We need the natural enviroment with all its animals and vegetation to stay alive, it does not need us to keep on going, if we look at the question of what stands above what than we humans are very clearly not on top of the creation. As far as making the statement that we are better than animals because we have got the brains it seems to me that we are dumber than the rest of the lot because aldo we know that we are destroyig our habitat that we need for survival and yet we continue on this road to apocalipse, an animal might not realise how it impacts on the enviroment that sustains it but we do. Is it not astonishing how little respect we show for nature. We homo sapiens sapiens have this principle`If it bites us, kill it``We are sloughtering millions of animals every year yet we do not approve of their natural right to fight back. Should we not extend the meaning of `Do to others as you want them to do upon you`` to include animals as well. I am not a vegetarian or a brainless natural activist but i do request a little more respect and understanding for the rest of the species that we share our habitat with. We need them, they do not need us, think of that next time you eat a burger. | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 129 Registered: 5-2005 |
What makes us above all other animals is, that I have a dollar in my pocket and a credit card. By which I don’t have to compete against all other life forms for my next meal. I also have a option on what my next meal is going to be. Will ever a dolphin be able to do that? To make a claim that we are not above all other animals is pretty stupid, since all other life existence is now in our hands. | ||
| Dennis.K.Ynborg Intermediate Member Username: kazik Post Number: 41 Registered: 4-2005 |
Michael, if we take that kind of reasoning than the next logical step will be that we ho do have a buck in the wallet stand above those who does not. I do not have the latest figures but i think that almost a third of the world population is in danger of starvation, many have not thae option of what their next meal will be but have to get by on whatever they can get. Yes we do have all the other life existence in our hands, but the only way for us to destroy it at present would be to detonate all our nuclear warheads all around the world thus innhiliating ourselves, but even then we would have propably not exterminated all life because recent studies have shown how resiliant som bacterial and insect life can be, they would have in that case outlasted us. We may have the future of all other exsistence in our hands but mother nature has us in its power even more so. The recent events down south in US has shown that with exceptional clarity. Our civilisation is what provides our next meal, but that civilisation still heavily depends on mother nature. A climatic change can could potentially destroy it and we would be back at square one. Ask any traditional native american if he thinks that he stands above the rest of the surrounding wildlife, he will propably answer no, all life icluding our own is intertwined and codependant on each other for survival thus making all life equal in rights and value. If our civilisation and species dissapeared over night it would impact on other species, most obvious would be the nes that we have so heavilly domestticated and changed through selective breading that they would not survive without us, othe species that has learned to live on the scraps that we produce would probably also experience a serious decline in population like rats, sparrows, city dowes etc, etc. We humans have a good saying `` don`t bite the hand that feeds you``. Nature is at present our master, we depend on it for construction materials, food and even the air that we breath. We are not better than her. | ||
| Dennis.K.Ynborg Intermediate Member Username: kazik Post Number: 43 Registered: 4-2005 |
ehmmm, i feel we have straied from the topic of thr thread so i started a new one on the topic adressed in the last postings. It is located in ``Culture`` You are welcome to participate. You too Ray, maybe i can change your point of wiew, i do love a challenge ;) Respectfully, DKY | ||
| Beelzebub Senior Member Username: beelzebubPost Number: 129 Registered: 7-2005 |
I gotta agree with Mikey on this one! How do I know that hyoomun beans are at the top of the ladder? Cause I wouldn't to be anything else! ciao! Beelzy "And we'll dance through our isolation Seeking solace in the wisdom we bestow" - DCD | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 132 Registered: 5-2005 |
Dennis.K.Ynborg You’re coming up with some strange arguments. When Neal Armstrong first walked on the moon, he represented all the humanity as does the dollar and the credit card. If the majority of humanity is starving, they are still part of human capabilities and human achievements. I was not talking about extinction but the faith of any animal in a very unlikely scenario. We would not let any animal threaten our existence but we have the capacity to threaten theirs. And as for food, we really don’t rely on Mother Nature all that much. Why, do you think man still go hunting for our next meal? Mother Nature has very little impact on human survivals. Not unless you’re thinking of another Noah’s ark. Even then, if a whole continent was wiped out, humans still occupy the other six. | ||
| Trevor Bulley Advanced Member Username: tmb Post Number: 80 Registered: 12-2004 |
Hi Michael, Can you expand a bit more on this comment? What makes us above all other animals is, that I have a dollar in my pocket and a credit card. By which I don’t have to compete against all other life forms for my next meal. I also have a option on what my next meal is going to be. You are saying that by having a dollar in your pocket and CC this means you do not have to compete with other life forms. I assume you are excluding humans from this competition? The fact that we have both of these as currency implies that competition to supply and demand exists between humans. I suggest that we compete directly with bacterial life forms when buying food. If this is prepared incorrectly or not preserved bacterial life will certainly compete with you for this, and might even kill us. Your dollar also pays for competition when food is grown or raised. Insecticides etc are required when we compete with other life forms in growing grains, livestock etc. I would also imagine that your options for another meal are restricted to what human society offers you. You might be able to travel somewhere and buy organic grown food, or live monkey brains, but often these are removed as choice from you by other people. You add, To make a claim that we are not above all other animals is pretty stupid, since all other life existence is now in our hands. I suggest that the term 'above' can be misinterpreted, we are certainly different, however your comparison to dolphins makes me think of some faculties, like sonar, that they possess natively, and we dont. We utilise technology to compensate, but does this make us 'above' them? What are your criteria for judging 'above'? You think that we hold the future of all life forms in our hands? If we destroyed all life on the planet, you might be correct, but I imagine that bacteria are probably the most secure group at the moment, even cockroaches are more likely to withstand nuclear winters than we are. Most of what we enact is not applied with excessive intelligence, but from political expedience, so I do not think man is in 'control' as you imagine. I do not understand your When Neal Armstrong first walked on the moon, he represented all the humanity as does the dollar and the credit card. If the majority of humanity is starving, they are still part of human capabilities and human achievements. Are you saying that since starving humans, are humans, and credit cards are human achievements, the fact that they do not have access to use these, to get meals or exert some control over their lives does not change your argument. How does this work? Surely the point was that we are 'above' competing with other life forms. I have seen beggars (without credit cards) competing for rubbish dump food with dogs, and not winning. You also say, We would not let any animal threaten our existence but we have the capacity to threaten theirs. I was under the impression that bacterial and viral (do you regard viruses as life?) do threaten our existence, certainly of individuals and possibly all human society. I have also heard that some people get killed by sharks, elephants, snakes even dogs, and in the lead up to this, they get 'threatened'. You say, And as for food, we really don’t rely on Mother Nature all that much. I do not know about you but everything that I eat comes from nature, at least in its base form. Fruit, vegetables, meat, all of these are harvested in some way from nature. At a stretch I sometimes eat instant food, but this is not conjured out of thin air by scientists, at some point it was still a base element. By your argument of not relying upon Mother Nature, we could remove all other lifeforms, and perhaps even the sun and ocean and still be OK? Since you seem to consider flooding to be part of mother nature, presumably the Sun is too? Your last point, Mother Nature has very little impact on human survivals. Not unless you’re thinking of another Noah’s ark. Even then, if a whole continent was wiped out, humans still occupy the other six. Perhaps the recent tsunami was not an impact upon human survival as a species, but 250000 is still a significant figure. There seems to be few earthly disasters that would wipe out all humans, however I suspect that space is also part of mother nature. An asteroid collision with the earth is unpredictable and unlikely in a short time frame, however it could take us all out. More certain is the novation of our Sun, and although that is some time away, life on earth and the earth itself will be fried to nothingness. Perhaps you could explain the parts that are confusing me. | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 134 Registered: 5-2005 |
Trevor Bulley Trevor- I understand your points completely and I would side with your view if all life was valued on individual bases. But in reality, the most important thing for all life is to retain the specie. Humans are now outside nature-we have found preventatives to avoid almost all impact. We don’t compete for food directly with bacteria, bacteria competes with us if and when opportunity arises. If by chance bacteria does get into food now and then, the impact is minimal to humans. Looking at it outside the square, so what if 1 or 1000 people die because of bacterial infection-the 1000 wouldn’t even be noticed. As for the dollar and the credit card, yes, for X-$$ I can choose to eat live monkey brains even if I lived in the most remote part of the world. In our society we all are consumers, providers of food are only in commotions as far as quantity and quality. Your argument with dolphins fails ….you are trying to put a value on dolphins life and then compare it to human life. If you have children, would you sacrifices one child for all the dolphins in the world? IN reality, my life to me is worth more then your life and your life to you is worth more then my life and the dolphins lives are worth less then any of ours. Now - how one human can represent all? Because humans represent humans; not monkeys, bacteria or dolphins. | ||
| Trevor Bulley Senior Member Username: tmb Post Number: 81 Registered: 12-2004 |
Michael, you say, I understand your points completely I am sorry to say I cannot say the same. I am finding your logic and structure difficult to follow. You say, But in reality, the most important thing for all life is to retain the specie Is it? Why? Surely any one species that dissappears does not mean life is lost. It will be important for only that species if it goes extinct. Humans are now outside nature-we have found preventatives to avoid almost all impact. We don’t compete for food directly with bacteria, bacteria competes with us if and when opportunity arises. If by chance bacteria does get into food now and then, the impact is minimal to humans. How are we outside nature? We process the same nutrients and waste products as other animals, we are reliant of oxygen as they are, and this comes from plants. The existence of oxygen has been put down to stromatolites who utilised carbon dioxide and produced oxygen. This makes humans very much part of nature. We do compete with bacteria and viruses for resources and food because they are everywhere. They also live in billions inside your intestines and without them you would be unable to function properly. At birth our intestines are colonised by beneficial organisms that we rely upon to compbat potentially lethal ones, so own own bodies and battlefields of bacteria. Trust me, humans are part of nature and we are very reliant upon other organisms. It's not just the issue of what happens if a pandemic sweeps the earth, and 1000, or 10 million die, it is the fact that your body is partly fuelled and operated by micro organism. I am struggling to track your next comment, As for the dollar and the credit card, yes, for X-$$ I can choose to eat live monkey brains even if I lived in the most remote part of the world. In our society we all are consumers, providers of food are only in commotions as far as quantity and quality You seem to be saying that with unlimited money you have unlimited choice. I would agree that money is capable of buying many things, a degree of health, some happiness, some control, but we compete aggressivey among ourselves for this money, so I am sure you (and most others) do not have unlimited money. Your choice of what you eat next is a product of your social environment. The wide choice is a socially created illusion. If you are born and bred on burgers, you might never question what you could be eating. You say, Your argument with dolphins fails ….you are trying to put a value on dolphins life and then compare it to human life. I did not say anything about the value of a dolphins life relative to human. You made a comment that humans were above all other life, since we controlled them. Your comment that dolphins cant decide on their next meals seems to be your supporting argument for this. I replied that dolphins have some superior traits, like sonar. Noe of this relates to 'value' of life between different species. Read my post again and check it yourself. So when you conclude, If you have children, would you sacrifices one child for all the dolphins in the world? IN reality, my life to me is worth more then your life and your life to you is worth more then my life and the dolphins lives are worth less then any of ours. I never said otherwise. Now - how one human can represent all? Because humans represent humans; not monkeys, bacteria or dolphins. What do you mean by this? I cannot see the links to the rest of the post. | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 135 Registered: 5-2005 |
Trevor Bulley Your argument on this is more of equal right to life for all life. Rather then putting humans in order of right to life above all other. And my argument is, humans have developed a system which offers them more choices include the right to decide the faith of all other life and we have the capability to improve the quality of our own. It also does not stop there; we are also capable of reproducing all essential element to sustain life, including oxygen and water. Are we in compotation with other life for food? Again NO we are not. We decide who gets what and if bacteria causes the imbalance in our systems, we know how to balance it. OK we cannot control Mother Nature’s fury but we can predict it and avoid maximum death in most cases. Here is another quality I’m sure no other life possesses- to plan our life and the lives of generations ahead. | ||
| AndroJenn Senior Member  Username: efremPost Number: 235 Registered: 2-2003 |
Trev sez: "OK we cannot control Mother Nature's fury but we can predict it and avoid maximum death in most cases. Here is another quality I'm sure no other life possesses- to plan our life and the lives of generations ahead." It is well documented that most animals/wildlife in the vicinity of the recent tsunami in Asia 'sensed' its approach and headed for the hills well before landfall; in fact, even a few relatively 'unsophisticated' indigenous human tribes did the same. Seems the more 'civilized' amongst us actually bore the brunt of the disaster. This same instinct has been recorded regards numerous natural disasters. As for planning out our lives and the lives of generations ahead, I refer you to the old saw: "If you wanna make God laugh..., make a plan."; and, "The best laid plans of mice and men gang aft aglee". It would seem that most other animals/creatures already know what's best for their survival as long as they can stay outta our way. LOve, Jenn Nearly all men can stand adversity but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.-Abe Lincoln | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 136 Registered: 5-2005 |
It is well documented that most animals/wildlife in the vicinity of the recent tsunami in Asia 'sensed' its approach and headed for the hills well before landfall; in fact, even a few relatively 'unsophisticated' indigenous human tribes did the same. Seems the more 'civilized' amongst us actually bore the brunt of the disaster. This same instinct has been recorded regards numerous natural disasters. Agree, we the majority of humans are no longer in tune with nature in the same way animals or tribes living of the land do. Humans now are outside and above nature and don’t rely on the sixth sense. As the old saying goes- “use it or loose it”. Is this good, I believe it is- each day brings new knowledge and with knowledge we gain new independence. As for planning out our lives and the lives of generations ahead, I refer you to the old saw: "If you wanna make God laugh..., make a plan."; and, "The best laid plans of mice and men gang aft aglee". It would seem that most other animals/creatures already know what's best for their survival as long as they can stay outta our way. LOve, Jenn Ah! Very good and you are so right if you take a position of an individual person. You and I will never fulfill our plan in our life time, mainly because our plans are bigger then the reality. Even though we plan our lives individually, the plans we have for the future is the same plan our great grandfathers had. To bring world out of poverty and restore peace for future generations. | ||
| Trevor Bulley Senior Member Username: tmb Post Number: 83 Registered: 12-2004 |
Michael, where are you getting this idea from when you say, Your argument on this is more of equal right to life for all life. I have said nothing about equal rights for various organisms, relative to man. I do not assume that your saying 'above' when referring to humans relative to others means a greater right to life, since you never defined criteria for 'above'. And my argument is, humans have developed a system which offers them more choices include the right to decide the faith of all other life and we have the capability to improve the quality of our own Your argument has been unclear before this statement. I agree we do have a quite different ability to manipulate lives relative to most other animals, however I do not think you should rule out the capacity of bacteria and viruses to play a major role in our lives. Since you do not respond directly to points I make about the complex intercation of our own systems and microorganisms, I do not know if you are reading them, if you understand, disagree with or ignore them. Our basic cellular structure includes the mitochondria, the power pack that drives each and every cell was once a free living bacteria. Our dominanace takes a different shade. Cancer is the result of uncontrolled replication of cells in the body. Although I am not aware of definitive studies that show any causation by parts of the cell itself that might have been bacteria, however cancer and eath itself are hardly signs of control over other organisms, or nature itself. Are we in compotation with other life for food? Again NO we are not. We decide who gets what and if bacteria causes the imbalance in our systems, we know how to balance it. OK we cannot control Mother Nature’s fury but we can predict it and avoid maximum death in most cases. Here is another quality I’m sure no other life possesses- to plan our life and the lives of generations ahead. You seem to think we can control all other life and we do not compete with others. Its a bold statement but not backed by facts, and you offer nothing to support this. We do have limited abailioty to manage parts of nayure for short periods and it does exceed the ability of other life forms. However, death is natures trump card and despite future generations, eternal life is still a long way off (what a great pun). That would be control indeed over nature. There is no certainty for future generations either. | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 137 Registered: 5-2005 |
Somehow I ether don’t follow what you are saying or you are making it far too superior for my intellect. Your argument has been unclear before this statement. I agree we do have a quite different ability to manipulate lives relative to most other animals, however I do not think you should rule out the capacity of bacteria and viruses to play a major role in our lives. Since you do not respond directly to points I make about the complex intercation of our own systems and microorganisms, I do not know if you are reading them, if you understand, disagree with or ignore them. Our basic cellular structure includes the mitochondria, the power pack that drives each and every cell was once a free living bacteria. Our dominanace takes a different shade. Cancer is the result of uncontrolled replication of cells in the body. Although I am not aware of definitive studies that show any causation by parts of the cell itself that might have been bacteria, however cancer and eath itself are hardly signs of control over other organisms, or nature itself. When you say “once was free living bacteria” you are suggesting macro evolution and then on the other hand you continue by suggesting all life is dependent on other life for survival. Then you start to exclude what is relevant and what is not relevant to your debate. I want to know from which angle are you debating this subject from. You seem to be really stuck on this bacteria and viruses, insisting they play a big role. Certainly they do, that’s why we have a thing called medicine, which intern gives humans power to rule over bacteria and most viruses and change certain parts of DNA. Refrigeration and cooking our food is another way of controlling bacteria. Is bacteria in competition for the same food as I eat. Sure they are but only after I have thrown the bits I don’t want in the bin. As for bacteria in our bodies; no, the bacteria in our bodies in not in competition for food with us. The bacteria in our bodies is mainly to assist our various functions and if there is an imbalance we have the knowledge to balance it out again. We do have limited abailioty to manage parts of nayure for short periods and it does exceed the ability of other life forms. However, death is natures trump card and despite future generations, eternal life is still a long way off (what a great pun). That would be control indeed over nature. There is no certainty for future generations either. Unfortunately the price for life is death and despite the way we carry on towards one another, we are united as one. Our individual death does not mean the death of our dreams dies with us. Today we ask for the same things that humans have asked for from the beginning Except now we are at the stage where dreams have the capacity to become a reality. You seem to think we can control all other life and we do not compete with others. Its a bold statement but not backed by facts, and you offer nothing to support this. I thought capacity to change our fait would be a good bit of evidence in controlling nature . Up until 50 years ago an average age for a woman was 45 years, mainly due to complications giving birth. Even the most common illnesses were once a threat to our survival.Without even going into the facts, have we not structured and implemented plans for the survival of our fauna and flora? | ||
| Trevor Bulley Senior Member Username: tmb Post Number: 86 Registered: 12-2004 |
Hi Michael Somehow I ether don’t follow what you are saying or you are making it far too superior for my intellect. We do not seem to follow each others line of thinking very well. Perhaps we have different base assumptions or are not explaining our logic. Mainly I am just trying to see how you support your statements, so I usually begin with a question and then put my view, if it is different. I will point out an example in this last post of yours When you say “once was free living bacteria” you are suggesting macro evolution and then on the other hand you continue by suggesting all life is dependent on other life for survival. This is an example of a connection you make, that I cannot see. I CAN see that macroevolution is implied by free-living bacteria becoming integrated into humans, however I cannot see how this is excludes interdependence of different lifeforms, regardless of whether I support macroevolution or not. Then you start to exclude what is relevant and what is not relevant to your debate. What does this mean? Should I include what is relevant and not relevant to my debate, or should I exclude them? Or, should I include what is relevant and exclude what is not? Or vice versa? I want to know from which angle are you debating this subject from. My angle is to try and understand if you can support the statements you make. In doing so I make my own (with some support) to show why I am not comfortable with some of yours. You seem to be really stuck on this bacteria and viruses, insisting they play a big role. Not really, but you have made some statements that are supported by what I know about them. I am not sure I would describe their role as big, just bigger than what you describe. Not really, but you have made some statements that are supported by what I know about them. I am not sure I would describe their role as big, just bigger than what you describe. I disagree that humans rule over bacteria with medicine. We have a very limited ability here and much of the effect we have is not yet fully understood. Its true we have eliminated (or nearly so) things like small pox. TB etc. Yet we still have no cure for the common cold. We also have some viral infections, that by the way, we cannot cure with the miracle of antibiotics, like AIDS. The way we deal with health has also sparked increases in things like allergies and eating disorders. Cancer is a leading cause of death in the US, if medicine is able to control all these things, why are people still dying from this? Perhaps you mean to say that we have a limited ability to do small parts of this? Medical intervention itself is said to also be a leading cause of death in the US, around 250000 per year. All this is not how I imagine control to be. Refrigeration and cooking our food is another way of controlling bacteria. Is bacteria in competition for the same food as I eat. Sure they are but only after I have thrown the bits I don’t want in the bin Sure we have some control with these mechanisms. I suggest you do some more research into bacteria in food and water. E.coli bacterium exists in tap water that we drink, various levels are regarded as safe. Bacteria are everywhere, in food, water, on your skin. Don’t take my word for it, do some research As for bacteria in our bodies; no, the bacteria in our bodies in not in competition for food with us. The bacteria in our bodies is mainly to assist our various functions and if there is an imbalance we have the knowledge to balance it out again. In my view our knowledge is limited, you seem to make blanket statements like this but perhaps you do not mean them to be taken literally.. Unfortunately the price for life is death and despite the way we carry on towards one another, we are united as one So what if it is? Death is the failure of life. It indicates the limits of our control. What is the point of telling me we are united as one? Is this inferring divinity? I have no problem with this, if you are, but I don’t want to assume it. Our individual death does not mean the death of our dreams dies with us. Do you mean my dreams live on in others, in my children, in an eternal afterlife? Today we ask for the same things that humans have asked for from the beginning. Really - what beginning? Adam and Eve, Homo Sapiens sapiens 200,000 years ago? Is this food, salvation, love? Except now we are at the stage where dreams have the capacity to become a reality. I agree that we now manage to do remarkable things undreamt of by primitive stone age men, or even those of 50 years ago, but that does not invalidate my comments above. I thought capacity to change our fait would be a good bit of evidence in controlling nature . Up until 50 years ago an average age for a woman was 45 years, mainly due to complications giving birth. Even the most common illnesses were once a threat to our survival.Without even going into the facts, have we not structured and implemented plans for the survival of our fauna and flora? I agree we have does not remarkable things, but it is far from Utopia. Life span is grown hugely and I expect that we will be living until 120 years old in the next 20-50 years (assuming no major disasters or stuffups). Tooth abcesses used to kill people in the past, today this is a minor procedure. We do heart transplants, and we are sure to do brain transplants. All this I do not question. But we face serious environmental problems with water, global warming, the loss of bio diversity etc, where we are doing much worse than you seem to think. Here again, I suggest you do some research. | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 138 Registered: 5-2005 |
Trevor Bulley I think our debate has gone in two different direction. Just rechecking your previous posts- your debate seems to be on, one on one bases when comparing animals to humans (ie. One dolphin’s intelligence against one human intelligence. And I’m debating all humans as one body and all dolphins as one body. I’m putting humans above all other animals for this reason. We the humans could not compare our strength or some of special abilities that other life possesses, on- one on one bases. But we humans work as one unit one brain, everybody benefits from one persons achievements. The idea is for everybody to be a consumer and a producer world wide and the reward for that is a dollar-which is very versatile compared to the old barter system and it cannot be matched by any other life. Our separation came way back when we first learned how to communicate other then speech- which intern gave us ability to leave recorded messages and instructions long after our death. Now one could fulfill a dream of others centuries after their death. I’m failing to see how comparing micro organisms and the chemical biology is relevant to this debate. Or, how is it going to put any other life form even equal to human potential. If you mean we are venerable to diseases because we are made from flash and not iron- yes, but less and less every day. Humans at present are on a certain advantage, as the say-everything that goes up must fall down…time will tell. | ||
| Trevor Bulley Senior Member Username: tmb Post Number: 88 Registered: 12-2004 |
Michael Ray, I think our debate has gone in two different direction. I agree with you on this one. I’m failing to see how comparing micro organisms and the chemical biology is relevant to this debate Once again, I have to agree. Its just that you were making comments that did not have any supporting evidence. | ||
| AndroJenn Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 236 Registered: 2-2003 |
Quite honestly, I think you boys are comparing Apples and Orangutans: they're both living organisms and physically occupy space but they are two different entities with separate identities that bear only the fact that they exist in common. One is not superior to the other by virtue of its characteristics. True, an orangutan can eat an apple but an apple cannot eat an orangutan unless that orangutan happens to die at the foot of the apple's tree, then its body would eventually be consumed by a sort of osmosis. The ability to destroy/absorb something else doesn't make for superiority. Apples absorb nutrients including water..., I don't think that means apples are superior to water. LOve, Jenn Nearly all men can stand adversity but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.-Abe Lincoln | ||
| Trevor Bulley Senior Member Username: tmb Post Number: 89 Registered: 12-2004 |
Hi AJ, you have clearly lifted the fog for me, how are you with this Michael, this debate was getting far too serious, for a minute I began to think I knew what was going on. One thing puzzles me AJ, can an orangutan keep the good doctor away? | ||
| AndroJenn Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 237 Registered: 2-2003 |
Well Trev Baby..., I should think that an Orangutan lolling about your front porch would have the effect of keeping any errant doctor or anyone else away..... LOve, Jenn Nearly all men can stand adversity but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.-Abe Lincoln | ||
| Michael Ray Senior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 139 Registered: 5-2005 |
you have clearly lifted the fog for me, how are you with this Michael, this debate was getting far too serious, for a minute I began to think I knew what was going on. AJ is certainly artistic in the way he can make you rethink you position of your thought. I don’t think our debate is anything more then a debate, can it be? Perception can be all fact and still nothing more then a perception. One thing I have learned over the years, facts change daily- what is fact today can be nothing more then nonsense tomorrow and the other way around. The question is; how much do we really know and what is the truth? Take one science paper on genetic engineering, backed up by undisputed evidence. That is, until you read another science paper completely contradicting what you thought was undisputed evidence. Then to make things even more confusing, both contradictory pares have played as a major contributor in the advancement in our society. Is there more then one way to skin a cat? Does it matter- as long as that cat ends up without skin. Many question like, are we alone in this universe-will never be answered or the great debate on creation verses Evolution or for that matter, are humans above all other animals. Humans can produce evidence and prosper from knowledge but is it knowledge or just a perception? | ||
| Trevor Bulley Senior Member Username: tmb Post Number: 90 Registered: 12-2004 |
If that damn baboon lays a hand on my fruit, its the zoo for him. |
