Evolutionary Debate
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 16:16
VIEWED: 20170
PAGE 14 of 20
Quote:Point 2 neutralised by us neutralising the environment. Points 1 and 3 neutralised by large population sizes (read my post above).
Originally posted by TrenchMonkey:
1)Genetic Drift.
2)Natural Selection.
3)Artificial Selection.
I guess I didn't consider artificial selection in the human population so much, but I don't think this should count as human evolution as it only affects a very small fraction of the population. I guess over time (if the effort is kept up) it could lead to a branching off from the human race - too bad we won't be around to find out.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think future evolution of the Human race will be virtual rather than genetic. I think we'll gradually become closer and closer with our technology until we've got all manner of computerised enhancements, from memory to processing speed (allowing us to think faster). In the future I think we'll probably find a large percentage of people spending their entire lives in artificial enviroments, not just interacting with the computer like today, but litterally living in it.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I think future evolution of the Human race will be virtual rather than genetic. I think we'll gradually become closer and closer with our technology until we've got all manner of computerised enhancements, from memory to processing speed (allowing us to think faster). In the future I think we'll probably find a large percentage of people spending their entire lives in artificial enviroments, not just interacting with the computer like today, but litterally living in it.
Where can I sign up?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One day we'll have people going around saying "I'm a PC" and "I'm a Mac" and mean it literally!
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's somewhat distubing.
Originally posted by Khyron:
One day we'll have people going around saying "I'm a PC" and "I'm a Mac" and literally mean it!
Hi Trev, what's new?
Me, actually, just got the latest MS upgrade, upgraded my software to HumnDows 2310, it's really great all my options have pretty coloured buttons an- -This Human has experienced a fatal exception at memory unit 0xf99DDFFAB24345G and will be shutdown-
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:That's somewhat distubing.
Originally posted by Khyron:
One day we'll have people going around saying "I'm a PC" and "I'm a Mac" and literally mean it!
Hi Trev, what's new?
Me, actually, just got the latest MS upgrade, upgraded my software to HumnDows 2310, it's really great all my options have pretty coloured buttons an- -This Human has experienced a fatal exception at memory unit 0xf99DDFFAB24345G and will be shutdown-
"Hey man, were've you been?"
"well I swapped over to Linux last week"
"Oh so you've been playing around with all the new features?"
"Well...it's more like trying to figure out how to get my legs to work...it didn't come with drivers see, and also the control scheme is a bit more complicated, plus I had to spend a few days modifying my config files to get the waste disposal service to start...I might make it into work next week or so, I've heard that there's a patch for my leg problems coming"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen to be fair, ID is science if you can prove that the archetype of a gene cannot be reduced beyond a certain point(which is what the Creationist claims in the video i posted). it wouldnt be religious to say that the basis for the DNA, or the programming, had to come from somewhere before it was able to evolve.. if it can be proven
otherwise, i am fine with ID being left out of hard physical scientific debate.. but lets restrict science to the same guidelines then aswell. in the same way that some of you feel religion encroaches on science, we feel that science is encroaching on religion, when it makes claims about the lack of a GOd, that cant be substantiated.. which i hear quite a lot. we cant prove GOd exists, but humanity has been predisposed to religious theology since the beginning of known history, so i believe its not out of line to leave the ID possibility open, if the data suggests it
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes if the existence of an intelligent designer could be proven or disproven then ID would be Science, since it can't the point is moot, no matter how you cut it.
Originally posted by antimason:
Citizen to be fair, ID is science if you can prove that the archetype of a gene cannot be reduced beyond a certain point(which is what the Creationist claims in the video i posted). it wouldnt be religious to say that the basis for the DNA, or the programming, had to come from somewhere before it was able to evolve.. if it can be proven
Quote:How very magnanimous of you
otherwise, i am fine with ID being left out of hard physical scientific debate..
Quote:No, religion IS encroaching on science, we don't just feel it is, it is. That is, for a start, what ID is all about, trying to get God into science, baby steps, today it's an intelligent creator tomorrow it's "well as an astrophysicist I can confirm that science has verified the literal creation in the bible as fact, and we should burn the non-believer".
but lets restrict science to the same guidelines then aswell. in the same way that some of you feel religion encroaches on science, we feel that science is encroaching on religion, when it makes a claims about the lack of a GOd, that cant be substantiated.
Science has not once, not ONCE said one word on the existence or non-existence of God. If you 'feel' otherwise please quote us the 'There is no God theory'. Science already keeps out of Religions business, if you feel otherwise maybe you should examine why that is.
Quote:Which is why religions and the existence of god aren't...
which i hear quite a lot. we cant prove GOd exists, but humanity has been predisposed to religious since the beginning of known history, so i believe its not out of line to leave the ID possibility open, if the data suggests it
Anyone, I've had to say fifty times already...
That's right, not science.
If it's left open as a religion do what the hell you like, it'll NEVER be science.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've stayed out of this debate, largely because I feel Cit has done a wonderful job (as have all the supporting evolution folk). Came across this link today though, and felt I needed to drop it in.
Really curious what someone like Antimason has to say about it...
From the article:
Flocks of the Christian faithful in the US will this Sunday hold special services celebrating Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The idea is to stand up to creationism, which claims the biblical account of creation is literally true, and which is increasingly being promoted under the guise of "intelligent design".
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11145-christian-faith-in-the-iot
heri-good-book.html
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Citizen- Yes if the existence of an intelligent designer could be proven or disproven then ID would be Science, since it can't the point is moot, no matter how you cut it.
but how do you know it cant be? no offense, but that sounds more like your own personal opinion then an empirical truth. if God does exist, then its possible we might have evidence of this within DNA itself(if its true that you cant backward devolve a sequence of DNA beyond a certain point, then that would constitute evidence that DNA itself coudlnt evolve, but possibly had an intelligent driver behind it)
Quote:
No, religion IS encroaching on science, we don't just feel it is, it is.
what are we holding science back from, really? it hasnt stopped academia in the slightest from perpetuating their scientific discoveries. if we ARE any kind of obstacle, its because a lot of people in the field make these bold claims to have disproven the existence of God.. and yet youll say yourself that science doesnt have an opinion either way.. so how is that? isnt that an encroachment on religion? you can say what you want, but i have no dispute with science itself, my problem is with evolutionary theory being touted as 100% unquestionably proven, and then used to illegitimize religion. there are a lot of peices of evolutionary theory, especially in reference to immeasurable periods of time, that cannot be proven... so whether these current theories are right or wrong, they are only 'beliefs' until they can be substantiated
Quote:
That is, for a start, what ID is all about, trying to get God into science, baby steps, today it's an intelligent creator tomorrow it's "well as an astrophysicist I can confirm that science has verified the literal creation in the bible as fact, and we should burn the non-believer".
ID is just an alternative position to take.. one that doesnt include life arising on its own. no one here has witnessed abiogenesis, and the alleged evolution from proteins to fully functional beings.. yet scientists in the field will offer this without any alternative perspectives on the issue. if science is what is seen and recordable, then a lot of so-called science today is just hypothesis and philosophy.. but itll get turned around on us Creationists, and youll say "science is about cold hard facts; religion is based on faith"; but it takes faith to believe an unproven scientific hypothesis too
Quote:
Science has not once, not ONCE said one word on the existence or non-existence of God.
science itself no.. scientists, yes; thats the distinction im making
Quote:
If you 'feel' otherwise please quote us the 'There is no God theory'. Science already keeps out of Religions business, if you feel otherwise maybe you should examine why that is.
the theory of abiogenesis is just like the gnostic/kabbalist myth of the Golem(im sorry if you dont want to hear it), or life springing from non-living matter. if it cant be proven, then that is a belief(in this case an actual religion) being taught as science. i dont expect you to agree with me, but youd be suprised to find that Masonry in many ways shares the same philosophy as the abiogenesis and evolutionary theories
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME