RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (Full Version)

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

Message

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/7/2006 9:11:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub amastermind, The example of the giraffe is exactly the wrong way to think of how evolution takes place. Life doesn't evolve as a reaction to the environment; Well, I suspect that you have a pretty good handle on the subject in general, but I would completely disagree with that statement. The fitness of an individual (their relative ability to reproduce) is determined 100% by their environment. The fitness pressure doesn't come from within, it comes from without - 100%. Everything without, whether its food supply, competitors, predators, climate conditions, willingness of a mate to participate in sexual reproduction, etc, etc, etc... all of that is the environment of the individual.

StrongButKind -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/7/2006 9:14:26 PM)
SirKenin, after stating publicly that a Wikipedia link proves something, concluded someone else isn't very bright? He then defended this with an analogy from Final Fantasy. I LOVE the Internet.

anthrosub -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/7/2006 9:18:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Daddy4UdderSlut quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub amastermind, The example of the giraffe is exactly the wrong way to think of how evolution takes place. Life doesn't evolve as a reaction to the environment; Well, I suspect that you have a pretty good handle on the subject in general, but I would completely disagree with that statement. The fitness of an individual (their relative ability to reproduce) is determined 100% by their environment. The fitness pressure doesn't come from within, it comes from without - 100%. Everything without, whether its food supply, competitors, predators, climate conditions, willingness of a mate to participate in sexual reproduction, etc, etc, etc... all of that is the environment of the individual. I completely agree with you. My little thesis is pretty rough around the edges and very general. What I meant by that statement (reaction to the environment) was that giraffes didn't get long necks because they had to stretch for food. anthrosub

StrongButKind -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/7/2006 9:20:14 PM)
A man born without testicles is 100% not fit to reproduce, regardless of his environment. So you've gone to the other -- quite incorrect -- extreme. As with so very much, it's nature meets nuture, and either in a vacuum is awfully incomplete. It's foolishness to apply percentages (so I assume SirKenin will try, citing MySpace and Sonic the Hedgehog), but fitness for reproduction is neither 0% nor 100% determined by environment.

anthrosub -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/7/2006 9:29:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrongButKind A man born without testicles is 100% not fit to reproduce, regardless of his environment. So you've gone to the other -- quite incorrect -- extreme. As with so very much, it's nature meets nuture, and either in a vacuum is awfully incomplete. It's foolishness to apply percentages (so I assume SirKenin will try, citing MySpace and Sonic the Hedgehog), but fitness for reproduction is neither 0% nor 100% determined by environment. If I may...you must keep in mind that his "lack" of testicles is as much a part of the "environment" as everything else. Everything is part of a system, including our own body. anthrosub

StrongButKind -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/7/2006 9:41:42 PM)
I apologize if I misunderstood Daddy4UdderSlut's use of "environment", if he intended it to include the self. In the context of genetic influence, environment refers the totality of surroundings outside the individual or group which influence that individual or group. I concluded Daddy4UdderSlut meant the same based on his distinction of environment from "within". My regrets for any confusion I created or to which I contributed.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/7/2006 10:05:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrongButKind A man born without testicles is 100% not fit to reproduce, regardless of his environment. So you've gone to the other -- quite incorrect -- extreme. As with so very much, it's nature meets nuture, and either in a vacuum is awfully incomplete. It's foolishness to apply percentages (so I assume SirKenin will try, citing MySpace and Sonic the Hedgehog), but fitness for reproduction is neither 0% nor 100% determined by environment. As to external nature vs internal nature, you may be on to something... and I do see that there is at least more validity to internal "fitness" when we concern ourselves with certain mutations that constitute defects, so perhaps it's not 100.0% (and certainly my clarity at this hour is not 100.0% ;-))... still... You may not consider the mate to be part of the definition of the environment, but I do. In essence the female form and the nature and location of her egg determine requirements for the male individual to be able to successfully carry out copulation, inject semen containing viable sperm with appropriate haploid genes that match the genotype of her ovum sufficiently to provide a viable fetus. Another example would be someone born with a defective heart. This might seem to be only an internal problem. But the reason it's a problem comes from the other contraints imposed by the nondefective portions of the body and its chemistry, and its necessary relation to the environment, which basically says - if you want to get the environmental oxygen to your cells, you need to have a mechanism for doing so; if you want to be able to distribute environmental nutrients to your cells, you need a mechanism for doing so (heartless organisms exist which manage just fine, but they don't have our form), etc. I am not aware of anything evolving without respect to its environment - perhaps you are? In most cases, it's due to what's present in the environment, but in other cases it's due to what's absent in the environment, e.g., absence of certain predators or competitors in an isolated environment may allow some rather bizarre "suboptimal" solutions to the business of living.

StrongButKind -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/7/2006 10:15:19 PM)
I agree entirely -- environment is relevant in all things. My only point is that so is the self. To make a foolishly broad statement, I would say that everything evolved is a combination of both genetic makeup and environmental influence. As to your question about something evolving w/o respect to its environment, I guess I could make an argument for the purposes of trivia that resistance to certain congenital autoimmune conditions that prevent development to the point of being able to reproduce, if such resistance evolved, could be considered absent of environmental influence, but that's purely trivia, and may never have happened. For all intents and purposes, I would agree that evolution in all cases is a combination of the "within" and the "without", the nature and the nurture, the self and the environment. If you're so inclined, perhaps that's because the Great Spirit wants it that way.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/7/2006 10:29:23 PM)
Mastermind, As the hour gets later, my posts may wander increasingly ;-) ...but I wanted to add something and hopefully say it in less than a gazillion words this time... Not only is the close similarity of homologous proteins in so many disparate organisms evidence for a common ancestor, but the mere fact that virtually all of them, millions of species use precisely the same mechanism, DNA, as the method of encoding the instruction set for life, is also powerful evidence for a common ancestor. While there may be more, the only exceptions to the DNA coding that I know of are retroviruses, and the newly discovered prion "organisms" (like the bugs making Mad Cow Disease). Think about it, you and a fungus use the same alphabet to write the instructions for life. How cool is that??? I don't mean that in a flippant way, either, I find it absolutely fascinating, and somehow spiritually satisfying, this connection between all organisms. We can insert a gene from a human being into a bacterial organism, and it will then produce not only that human gene in its offspring, but it will produce the corresponding protein, so there is nothing special or fundamentally different about human genes versus bacterial genes. (If you want to get technical, there are some subtle distinctions at a fine grain, though, but that's for a different discussion). We do that exact process in fact, to manufacture protein therapeutics, like insulin. Human genes, inserted into bacteria, produce human hormones, which we harvest and put back into humans... mere coincidence that this is possible???

StrongButKind -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/7/2006 10:52:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Daddy4UdderSlut Mastermind, As the hour gets later, my posts may wander increasingly ;-) ...but I wanted to add something and hopefully say it in less than a gazillion words this time... Not only is the close similarity of homologous proteins in so many disparate organisms evidence for a common ancestor, but the mere fact that virtually all of them, millions of species use precisely the same mechanism, DNA, as the method of encoding the instruction set for life, is also powerful evidence for a common ancestor. While there may be more, the only exceptions to the DNA coding that I know of are retroviruses, and the newly discovered prion "organisms" (like the bugs making Mad Cow Disease). Think about it, you and a fungus use the same alphabet to write the instructions for life. How cool is that??? I don't mean that in a flippant way, either, I find it absolutely fascinating, and somehow spiritually satisfying, this connection between all organisms. We can insert a gene from a human being into a bacterial organism, and it will then produce not only that human gene in its offspring, but it will produce the corresponding protein, so there is nothing special or fundamentally different about human genes versus bacterial genes. (If you want to get technical, there are some subtle distinctions at a fine grain, though, but that's for a different discussion). We do that exact process in fact, to manufacture protein therapeutics, like insulin. Human genes, inserted into bacteria, produce human hormones, which we harvest and put back into humans... mere coincidence that this is possible??? And even the retroviruses (via Reverse Transcriptases) and prions (via specific proteins) are encoded in a manner very much a part of the DNA-RNA-protein system of life common to all discovered life. It is extremely cool, and to me more spiritual than any religious mythology has ever been. Maybe the soul is made of proteins. For those typing hate mail, please understand, of course, that I mean Jesus Intelligently Designed it that way. I'm pretty sure somewhere in Paul's letters it details how the Apostles turned wine into Telomerase Reverse Transcriptase. Complete with funny stick diagrams.

SirHedonicsslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/7/2006 11:38:44 PM)
stands up and says "Hi, i'm from Kansas and i believe in Creation...." and yes, both of those statements are true. i have no problem with my children learning about the theory of evolution, or whatever the scientists think they should be learning....but they also know creation, and at this point, i can proudly say that is what they believe to be true. i prefer to believe that they were the work of a loving Creator rather than chances of nature... Maybe it would be easier to take it all out of school and let the kids spend time learning things that THEY want to learn....then we wouldn't be spending millions of dollars on a debate that is NEVER going to be solved...maybe they could take the money that would be saved and give it to the schools to save programs that are being cut due to lack of funding???? The problem that i see with the whole legislature debate, is that they want to debate their own views and they forget that they are dealing with kids....their minds are open to everything and so ready to learn and explore....let them be taught whatever "versions" of the beginning of the planet are out there...and then they will decide on their own....they are intelligent creatures....far more intelligent than they are being credit for....they know it's much more fun to spend their time on the playground playing than it is debating whether a meteor created the planet or if some weird lizards crawled out of the swamp. just my opinion and i'm putting on my protective body armour as i speak.... slave jennifer "I would rather live my life believing God is there and die to find out He isn't....than to live believing there is no God and find out there is." "The Big Bang Theory.....God spoke and BANG it happened"

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/8/2006 10:08:52 AM)
No protective body armor needed. I am not opposed to kids being taught creation or intelligent design in a religion class, just not in a science class. Neither of these views on the origin and history of life are supported by either scientists or evidence. There is actually no controversy among scientists about the fundamental mechanisms of evolution, or that they have historically given rise to life as we now see it. Honestly, noone even talks about it. It'd be like talking about whether gravity is what is actually makes things fall to earth instead of a divine hand pushing them down. The idea that there is controversy over the validity of evolutionary theory stems purely from a disinformation campaign being waged by religious groups. In a sense, by arguing against the notions of creation or intelligent design to the public, scientists would essentially fulfill this expectation however (that there is controversy), therefore most scientists don't give press interviews or speeches about it to the lay public. So you won't see James Watson or Stephen Gould or E.O. Wilson trying to convince the public that genes actually encode structure and function of organisms, or that changes in these genes have actually brought us the present form and variety of life on earth. Then theologists could say - "See! there is a great controversy over whether Darwin's ideas are valid!".

Oona -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/8/2006 12:14:42 PM)
perhaps "God" in his genetic design instilled that creatures seek out genetically appropriate mates. I don't understand why it is hard to believe that such an omnipotent creator would design nature to work in such a fashion.

Alumbrado -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/8/2006 7:25:06 PM)
Or perhaps scientists from an incredibly advanced race somewhere created this 'God' in order to conduct their experiments on human superstitions.... Or may a super-deity created them... or maybe....[8\|]

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 7:41:37 AM)
Have not ploughed through this post so if I am repeating apologies. I am going to make a factual statement Evolution of the species by Natural Selection (ie Darwinism) IS NOT A FACT. It should by rights have collapsed when in the 1950's it became apparent how complex is the molecular structure of life. The fossil record shows that life has come about in a series of totally inexplicable steps. As far as I know Darwin did not discover any new species on the Galapogos islands. He found variants on existing species. With regard to Kansas:...well... an Irish American Kansan Kowboy (sic) on this site wants to whip my arse. That is also a FACT. lol see ya.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 7:53:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Have not ploughed through this post so if I am repeating apologies. I am going to make a factual statement Evolution of the species by Natural Selection (ie Darwinism) IS NOT A FACT. It should by rights have collapsed when in the 1950's it became apparent how complex is the molecular structure of life. The fossil record shows that life has come about in a series of totally inexplicable steps. As far as I know Darwin did not discover any new species on the Galapogos islands. He found variants on existing species. With regard to Kansas:...well... an Irish American Kansan Kowboy (sic) on this site wants to whip my arse. That is also a FACT. lol see ya. So, I guess the factual statement you referred to in your prelude was the last one then, eh? Your blithe dismissal of science makes it hardly worth a serious reply. There is an old saying that comes to mind: "To argue with a fool only proves there are two." [:D]

Lordandmaster -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 7:59:08 AM)
That statement says more about what you know than it does about Darwin or the Galapagos. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave As far as I know Darwin did not discover any new species on the Galapogos islands. He found variants on existing species.

SCORPIOXXX -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 8:27:51 AM)
To SHS and seeksfemslave and the rest of the godsquadders / creationists... I am always both chagrined and amused by your addiction to simplistic answers -- to wit, SHS said "The Big Bang theory... God spoke and BANG it was done." LMAO! I suppose you are a step up from the Flat Earth Society, maybe... To debate Evolution with the "Intelligent Design/Creationists" is nearly futile -- they don't need or want facts, they got faith, lol! Of course, from my side, it's unfair to have a battle of brains with unarmed oppponents... We can only pity their children, doomed to be raised in ignorance, lack of curiosity and a stunted intellectual development... Yet, the same bible thumpers have no problem going to Science to get themselves pregnant -- but if "god" decided they and their bodies weren't fit to have children, why do they disobey his will? Hypocrites!!!

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 9:03:38 AM)
For what it's worth, acceptance of evolution as the process which, beginning from a primordial ancestor, has produced all of our present form and variety of life, does not require rejection of the existance of God. In fact, it really says absolutely nothing about whether there is a God or not. Scientists don't study God or attempt to prove or disprove his existance. We study the natural world. The doctrines of the various religions, which I would separate from the existence of God, in part also provide descriptions of the natural world (or are interpreted to do so). Sometimes there are contradictions therefore, between thousands of years old religious doctrinal descriptions of nature, and scientific ones, since the latter represent the current state of rational thought, based on evidence, analysis, and competitive arguement. Many scientists, including some very eminent ones, believe in God. Many religious persons, including some with unshakeable beliefs, believe in science. Pope John Paul II himself acknowledged that "Evolution is more than a hypothesis". So you don't need to give up faith to believe that evolution happened and continues to happen. If the Vatican, which has been dragged kicking and screaming into the light for centuries by science, can accept evolution as a valid description of adaptation of life on earth, then why cannot half of Americans do the same? After a mere 150 years of thinking about it - "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", Charles Darwin, November 24, 1859.

captiveplatypus -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/9/2006 9:39:00 AM)
The government wants to keep people ignorant, they're easier to control that way.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.515625E-02