RE: The Human Race 2

RE: The Human Race 2 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

seeksfemslave -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/25/2008 7:14:39 AM)
Ignoring the impossibility of it starting in the first place, guided by Natural Selection life as we see around us is alleged to have evolved and in that evolutionary process humans have no special place. It follows that what has happened to humans on average could and should have applied to at least some other mammals. That has not happened has it? Why is that then? Intelligence? Why are not Gorillas as intelligent as humans? Why carnt Chipanzees write novels? Hyenas hunt but they seem not to have developed language. Why? Why didnt the Buffalo evolve and hunt the Indian and extirminate the White man ? Why have even some humans remained in the Stone Age? In other words why hasn't other species all round and in particular brain capability developed in the same way that it has for most humans.Only arskin' Another clear example of Natural Selection in fact having a selective drive or life exhibiting purpose in that the capacity or limitation was inbuilt from the start. ie did not evolve.

LadyEllen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/25/2008 7:25:19 AM)
It is a cumulative process of incident, accident and happenstance Seeks - had things not occurred to bring us to this point, then you and I might be sitting in the rainforest right now, throwing faeces at one another rather than throwing verbally expressed thought forms. And who knows? Maybe some dinosaurs built houses and drove cars? E

DomKen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/25/2008 7:33:20 AM)
Another busy day so I'lldeal with why isn't everything smart etc. arguments with: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB928_1.html

Rule -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/25/2008 7:51:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Ignoring the impossibility of it starting in the first place, guided by Natural Selection life as we see around us is alleged to have evolved and in that evolutionary process humans have no special place. Quite. Unless it is as the top predator, and as the dominant life form. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave It follows that what has happened to humans on average could and should have applied to at least some other mammals. Not necessarily. The ecological niche is occupied already. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave That has not happened has it? Why is that then? How do you know that it has not happened to another species? (Indeed it did.) quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Intelligence? Why are not Gorillas as intelligent as humans? Because they live west of the Great Rift Valley. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Why carnt Chipanzees write novels? Those also live west of the Great Rift Valley. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Hyenas hunt but they seem not to have developed language. Why? Because they are primarily active during the night. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Why didnt the Buffalo evolve and hunt the Indian and exterminate the White man? Because those niches are already occupied. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Why have even some humans remained in the Stone Age? Because they are isolated. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave In other words why hasn't other species all round and in particular brain capability developed in the same way that it has for most humans. Because. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Another clear example of Natural Selection in fact having a selective drive or life exhibiting purpose in that the capacity or limitation was inbuilt from the start. ie did not evolve. It is characteristic of evolving species that they do have the capacity to evolve, yes. Provided a mass extinction occurs, any species may evolve into multiple species each of which fills one of the vacant ecological niches - whether they be fish, frogs or mice.

seeksfemslave -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/25/2008 8:09:30 AM)
seeks arsks Why have even some humans remained in the Stone Age? quote: answer from Rule Because they are isolated. Odd that 'cos isolatation aids natural selection sometimes, you told me that and hinders it other times. How convenient.....again.

LadyEllen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/25/2008 8:13:26 AM)
If the isolated environment is stable Seeks, then there are no events which might cause cultural evolution or genetic evolution. If its unstable, the population moves and comes into contact with other humans, adapts or dies out. E

Rule -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/25/2008 8:16:08 AM)
You misunderstand me, so let me add to it: because they are culturally isolated.

luckydog1 -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/25/2008 11:05:11 AM)
Very good point Lady E, the women were also very involved in the evolutionary process. The idea that Ogg controlled everything has no real basis. And at the end of the day, Ogg had to sleep, and let a woman put her hands on his balls, so he had an incentive to rule with consent. Just as we see today repressive societies are weaker, and develop slower, with fewer innovations. There may have been some camps like Oggs. He cut off the womens feet so they couldn't run away, and all males were required to spend all thier time in his presence, ect ect. That camp would be very weak, and not last very long. And die off. Especially in a situation of changing climate. What is delusional is pretending that all early bands of humans were orginized and behaved in the same way, as seeks seems to be doing. And as was noted already, aborigines and natives are fully modern humans. You could take any one of them at birth and adopt them to an English family, and the kid would do just fine. And if seeks was dropped in the Austrailian desert with no tools, he would be fucked. Yes, isolation sometimes helps and sometimes hinders evolution. Just like prety much everything varies according to time and situation. You need water, but too much water will kill you. That does not mean that there is a delusion about water. All of this evolution stuff fits perfectly with the idea of Intelligent Design (which is not literal biblical creationism with a new name). Our universe is set up to evolve, as is physical life. We do not yet understand exactly how the first non alive thing became alive, though we have seen how the prerequisites formed.. But I suspect they will be able to do it in the lab before long.

DomKen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/25/2008 2:21:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 All of this evolution stuff fits perfectly with the idea of Intelligent Design (which is not literal biblical creationism with a new name). Our universe is set up to evolve, as is physical life. We do not yet understand exactly how the first non alive thing became alive, though we have seen how the prerequisites formed.. But I suspect they will be able to do it in the lab before long. Actually that isn't quite right. You seem to be equating the term to what is more precisely called Theistic Evolution and is the official stance of most non fundamentalist christian churches. Intelligent Design is a kind of big tent creationism. The movements supporters include known biblical literalists and those with more moderate views. It only appeared after the SCOTUS ruling forbidding the teaching of so called creation science in public schools and is pretty well documented to be an attempt to circumvent that ruling. See here for more info: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

luckydog1 -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/25/2008 4:15:02 PM)
ID is a big tent term, and literal creationists are in the tent. But saying they are the same is simply not logical, and is similar to saying that since Micheal Moore is in the Democratic parties tent (he was seated with Carter at the last convention) he represents the Democratic party. Fails the logic test. Not a single finding of science refute the idea though. Some proponents of ID take the design part back to creation. Its a modern word for Deist, which goes back much further than 1987. The term is new, the idea is not. And is far more than just trying to get creationism taught in schools. But it can mean different things. Personally I think they should spend 3 minutes saying basically "some people think there is a god force that is responsible for evolution and existance, we can't prove it either way, but this is science class and we are focusing on the science (what can be tested) here, and the existance/non existance of a God type force is not testable, so the class takes no position on it.". Why that has some people so upset is pretty much beyond me. Interstingly your talk origins page lists Dawkins as a proponent of Philosophical Materialism, which you vigourously denied the concept of, on the other thread.

DomKen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/25/2008 8:33:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Interstingly your talk origins page lists Dawkins as a proponent of Philosophical Materialism, which you vigourously denied the concept of, on the other thread. I did? Would you point that out? I'm a Philosophical Materialist. As to ID check out the outcome and testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

luckydog1 -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/25/2008 10:06:12 PM)
Oh so you now agree that Chaos theory is deterministic, and not in any way able to allow free will to exist. And that absolulty everything has been determined from the instant of creation, and nothing can possibly deviate. Why did you argue against it before? The results of a court case simply do not define things as such.

DomKen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/26/2008 7:35:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Oh so you now agree that Chaos theory is deterministic, and not in any way able to allow free will to exist. And that absolulty everything has been determined from the instant of creation, and nothing can possibly deviate. Why did you argue against it before? You're misrepresenting philosophical materialism. I think you need to reread my post on the subject http://www.collarchat.com/m_1691586/mpage_2/key_free%252Cwill/tm.htm#1697416 and try and explain how you got the claims you're now making from it. quote: The results of a court case simply do not define things as such. Read the ruling and at least the testimony of Barbara Forrest. It documents quite thoroughly the what and why of ID.

LadyEllen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/26/2008 7:48:39 AM)
Interesting thought, that if one knew all the variables and all the mechanisms at work in the instant of the Big Bang, then one could predict everything else that would ever occur, including life on Earth and the ascent of man. Even more fascinating, that if the variables were just a little different and/or the mechanisms a little different, then the whole of what followed might be so utterly different - but then if that were the case, we might not be here to have interesting thoughts at all. E

luckydog1 -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/26/2008 9:50:49 AM)
I know you wanted to jump into the previous argument and declare me wrong. And that you positied Chaos theory as an explanation. I took your position from you arguing aginst the definition of Materialism (philisophical, not love of possessions), that I provided (with a cite). I did note that it seemed people were disagreeing with me for no reason but that I said it, I guess you fall into that catagory. No, I don't think that court cases decide what is and isn't science and the definition of things. Is that going to be the standard you will be using from now on, a finding of fact in a state court ruling, which was not appealed, is henceforth relity and fact. Sounds very unscientific to me. But I suppose a political ruling trumps all else, and after all I don't vote right.....Ah, the liberation of "Science".

DomKen -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/26/2008 1:09:42 PM)
I never responded to your rather bizarre claims because you were clearly carrying on a previous argument with others on the thread. Do not take that as any sort of agreement with or disagreement with your points. As an atheist I can see an argument free will may be an illusion. I can also see an argument based in QM and chaos theory that the universe is not predictable and that free will may reside in that unpredictability. It is not a settled matter for me. However I do know that a religion that postulates, as virtually all versions of christianity do, an omnipotent and omniscient creator has as an inevitable conclusion that free will does not exist and that I reject any religion that says their supposedly omnibenevolent icon condemns the overwhelming bulk of humanity to eternal torment for no reason. As to the transcript you reject, did you read Dr. Forrest's testimony? The testimony where she established she had spent a great deal of research time investigating the ID movement? The unchallenged testimony which showed the evolution of a textbook from 'creation science' to 'intelligent design' by search and replace after the Edwards v Aguillard ruling? You might also try reading Dr. Michael Behe's, a leading ID movement thinker, cross examination where he admits a definition of science broad enough to allow ID to be science also makes astrology science.

luckydog1 -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/26/2008 4:47:55 PM)
Come on Domken, my bizzare claims consist of stating what philosophical materialism states as the condition of the Universe. There is nothing at all that is random and unpredictable (in theory). Its pretty much the only thing you can believe as an atheist. Quantums and Chaos are simply buzzwords, as you are using them here, and both are 100% deterministic. Nothing unpredictable or random about them. So you believe philosophical materialism, but haven't made up your mind about its conclusions? Interesting. Some Christian groups believe in "pre destination", but the existance of Free Will and the choice to accept or reject Christ is central to most forms of Christianity. Again, I don't think that the courts define what is and what isn't science or a philosphic movement. But your assertion that a court ruling is fact, will be used against you in our future debates. What did the courts rule in Bush v Gore 2000? Don't have to answer now, but it will come up again.

seeksfemslave -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/26/2008 5:03:11 PM)
Domken : Please dismiss from your mind the idea that it is sufficient to believe that natural Selection must be true because you are an Atheist and can pick holes, or know where to go to find the weaknesses, in the philosophy underlying orthodox Christianity. It aint necessarily so It aint nesser aint nesser Aint necessarily so.

philosophy -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/26/2008 5:54:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave How likely is that ? ..one in a million chances happen nine times out of ten. In other words, when there are ten million chances for an event to occur, if the odds against a specific type of that event are one in a million then we will, over that long ten million series, see it happen at least once. Seeks, you seem to conflate unlikelihood with impossibility, which is clearly wrong. (with apologies to T. Pratchett)

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The Human Race 2 (3/26/2008 6:47:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave How likely is that ? ..one in a million chances happen nine times out of ten. In other words, when there are ten million chances for an event to occur, if the odds against a specific type of that event are one in a million then we will, over that long ten million series, see it happen at least once. Seeks, you seem to conflate unlikelihood with impossibility, which is clearly wrong. (with apologies to T. Pratchett) That has been more or less explained to him. It doesn't fit with his dogma, though. Some ID/ Creationists claim to have "calcu;ated" the odds of a certain chamical event occuring in the primordial ooze as 1x10^40 or some such silly number. This in the oceans, full of neat chemicals and bombed with high-energy radiation (UV, x-rays, etc.) These big brains just lose perspective when contemplating thse big numbers. 22.4 liters is about, what 5-1/2 gallons? In that 5-1/2 gallons at STP there are 6.023x10^23 molecules/atoms of gas. (This is just to give the deep thinkers here some perspective) Mass of water is roughly 1 gram/cc. Molecular weight of water is 18g/mol. That's 55.5555 moles per liter, or 3.346x10^25 molecules. In a one liter coke bottle. That's a lot of molecules. How many liters in the earth's oceans? Perspective. They say that the odds are 1x1o^40 for two molecul;es to combine into one more complex molecule (TY UV radiation). UH, but that's consecutive flips of the coin. Now, given the above rough calculations, and remembering 8th grade science, the oceans are approx 3.4% salinity (NaCL, MgCL2, CaCL2, MgSO4, and so on). That's a LOT of molecules. But we only need 1x10^40 molecules. SO, if 1x10^40 coin tosses occured every second, how long would it take for two of those molecules to combine into one? Sorry, no hints on this one. This is why Creationist "math" is bullshit, and why continuing complexity is not only inevitable, but initially took place in a very short time. Like almost as immediately as conditions became right.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875