I've become a new born Christian; evolution is lies - Page 10 - Political Forum

TeaSea · #92 (**permalink**) 03-13-2008, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Murphy

I can't understand if we evolved why is there nothing out there that is remotely as intelligent as us, not even close. If we are the smartes creature and at top of the food chain, why is it what we evolved from died out, it must've been intelligent too. There is nothing living that is remotely as intelligent as us, or that even has a close resemblence to our appearence.

I'm not sure I would agree that there are no species remotely as intelligent as us. Certainly we are unique in having such a manipulitive type of intelligence as we do. It has enabled us to be the only species capable of occupying the entire globe. It is an extreme trait like giraffe neck length or dinosaur size - but their extreme traits do not enable them to invade so many different habitats.
Extreme traits are dangerous though, and often lead to extinction.
We are in danger of manipulating our habitat to death, as if we thought we could live without it.
As a species, we have not been tested by time. We have not been here very long.

TeaSea · #93 (**permalink**) 03-13-2008, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazikli Bey

I'm sorry, it never crossed my mind that it was purely a semantic issue but i was always instructed never to say adapt when talking of Darwinist Evolution.

I can see how the word, "adapt" seems to carry a misleading connotation, and maybe I'm wrong (I haven't read his book), but didn't Darwin himself use the word, "adaptation"?
There's a wonderful book, "Song of the Dodo" by David Quammen. It is all about evolution, extinction, island biodiversity, and adaptive radiation which is the process by which a species diverges into different species by spreading out into different ecosystems. It's a big book and I haven't even half finished it but it covers this topic very thoroughly and very beautifully. It's even kind of funny and suspenseful in some parts, like when he describes the time when he was chased and nearly caught by a Komodo dragon.

Kazikli Bey · #94 (**permalink**) 03-13-2008, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Well, I would not completely agree. The point is that in the fields of genetics we currently are on the way of finding out mechanisms that control mutation of the genetic code in a certain way, at least in higher organisms (animals or plants for example). The Introns seem to play a certain role here for example to name one example. Introns have been called DNA-Junk for a long time, junk without a function or sense. It increasingly looks like this might have been a wrong evaluation.

While Introns really dont seem to be much of a benefit for the individual itself, they seem to be of a worth when it comes to the recombination of DNA and also when it comes to mutation. I think the research is still in progress on this issue, but when I remember correctly its also favoring those mutations that make at least in the very basic genetic vocabulary sense.

The point is, in the scientific community the idea is rising that evolution is not a pure random process, but that its a combination out of random and guiding systems that increase the likability of positive mutation, or maybe conserve important genetic information while allowing more often mutation in other regions where it is more promising. Even though there is still much speculation on this, one should be principally open for those concepts.

After all, evolution do not favor the fittest individual but the fittest species, and species who develop methods to improve their own evolutionary score have an advantage. Species which do not trust on pure mutation random alone have an advantage.

Back to your very point again...
The genes don't have to change before habits change, for example if vegetable only eating humans discover meat as rare dish in times of food shortage for example and accept paying the price for bad efficiency in eating and digesting it, you will easily realise how an evolutionary pressure possibly could build up, which favors those who are better adapted to eat meat, beneath plants as major food source.

Of course thats just a guess from my side, but thats a way evolution can work for sure. The point is species do not always do what they can do best, but often are flexible and do also things they are not specialized towards if it is opportune even if its inefficient.

Hmm... sounds interesting. I never realised that mutations weren't always random or accidental. I always assumed that the evolution had to occur first (because Lamarckian adaptation was incorrect) rather then other factors manipulating DNA. But then again, i guess this is a new discovery, so i probably should get off my ass and research it (if only i had the time).

libertarian0507 · #95 (**permalink**) 03-13-2008, 04:16 AM

Oh jeez. Here we go again. I just don't understand it. Everyone has the opportunity to believe in your religion. Everyone has heard about Jesus, some of us just like to base our world view on rationality, not on fables. Oh sure, the bible has some great stories, like people killing giants with slingshots, but take it as a scientific authority? Not on your life.
Darwin studied the natural world to try to understand it better, and saw patterns in nature that gave evidence for mutations and changes, the survival of the fittest etc. He formed a valid theory about origins based on factual evidence observed. The bible is about an invisible being that controls everthing, and created us because he was bored. Theres stories like 'em all over the globe and they are all bunk. My own advide for you buddy, I really mean this in the nicest way possible;Take rationality over superstition and illogical dogma. Enjoy your life, stop worrying about hells that don't exist except for in your mind. And have a nice godless day

Slartibartfas · #96 (**permalink**) 03-13-2008, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Murphy

I can't understand if we evolved why is there nothing out there that is remotely as intelligent as us, not even close. If we are the smartes creature and at top of the food chain, why is it what we evolved from died out, it must've been intelligent too. There is nothing living that is remotely as intelligent as us, or that even has a close resemblence to our appearence.

Because the fittest survive. Being the smartest or most intelligent does not necessarily mean being the fittest. Otherwise insects would not be so highly successfull.

John Murphy · #97 (**permalink**) 03-13-2008, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Because the fittest survive. Being the smartest or most intelligent does not necessarily mean being the fittest. Otherwise insects would not be so highly successfull.

Yes, but why did they not survive, if we are at the very top and all animals other animals are below us, it stands to reason what we evolved from should also have survived. I never said anything about being the fittest, if they were close to our intelligence it should mean they too should survive. They would still be more intelligent than other species, they should be able to out wit their predators, and adapt to their enviroment.

The Lying Dutchman · #98 (**permalink**) 03-13-2008, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Murphy

Yes, but why did they not survive, if we are at the very top and all animals other animals are below us, it stands to reason what we evolved from should also have survived. I never said anything about being the fittest, if they were close to our intelligence it should mean they too should survive. They would still be more intelligent than other species, they should be able to out wit their predators, and adapt to their enviroment.

the 'they' you talk about evolved into 'us', so they did survive in that sense

Vandal · #99 (**permalink**) 03-13-2008, 11:44 AM

I guess the Op never intended to defend his argument.

Caltex · #**100** (**permalink**) 03-13-2008, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Murphy

Yes, but why did they not survive, if we are at the very top and all animals other animals are below us, it stands to reason what we evolved from should also have survived. I never said anything about being the fittest, if they were close to our intelligence it should mean they too should survive. They would still be more intelligent than other species, they should be able to out wit their predators, and adapt to their enviroment.

Humans are not so intelligent that we are leaps and bounds ahead of any other species. We are only one evolutionary step ahead of many other species.

Besides that, there were other species as intelligent as us, if not more intelligent at one point in time (Neanderthals that we know of, there probably have been more) and the went extinct, partly due to us. Being smartest does not mean one will survive.

One theory is that the Neanderthals were too conservative, and averse to taking risks, whereas our ancestors were very willing to take risks. The Neanderthals were stronger, more hardy, and probably smarter than us, and yet they died out. Intelligence is not everything.

Neanderthals Were Too Smart to Survive - Intelligence is nothing when communication is lacking - Softpedia